View Full Version : 2020 Presidential Candidates
Williamsmith
1-13-19, 9:04am
Starting with Tulsi Gabbard who announced just Friday her intention to run for President in 2020. Already this morning the Huffington Post ran a hit piece against her which shows exactly where the left “middle-right” leaning mainstream media stand. Bashing Gabbard for her global anti-interventionism and linking her to Trumps foreign policy and claiming she is an anti-Muslim bigot.......the Huff Post props up Warren and Sanders by name as the proper candidates.
Not 48 hours after her announcement, it is clear she will face a barrage of attacks in the name of clearing the field before it has even been taken. By the time of the 2020 election Sanders will be pushing 80 years of age. His opportunity was squashed by the same attitude the Huff Post shows here. Hopefully, the opinion of the American voters will be vetted in the public domain and not the bought and paid for mainstream media.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-run-foreign-policy_us_5c393bb2e4b01c93e00a0009
I still have two Bernie bumper stickers and figure I can just update the year with a sharpie, very frugal.
iris lilies
1-13-19, 10:31am
I still have two Bernie bumper stickers and figure I can just update the year with a sharpie, very frugal.
Haha!
catherine
1-13-19, 11:15am
Frustrating. Bernie thought he'd have more success working within the party than by running independent, but the Dems let him and his millions of supporters down. That's why I was so excited to see AOC become congresswoman. She was definitely a grassroots upsetter. But of course, she has a tough road ahead, especially if she doesn't modify her platforms to the will and whim of the Democratic Powers-that-Be.
Another victim of the vast left middle-right leaning mainstream conspiracy!
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/13/politics/kfile-tulsi-gabbard-lgbt/index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/presidential-dem-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-under-fire-for-anti-gay-remarks-says-she-regrets-them-and-that-shes-evolved
Hmmmm
iris lilies
1-14-19, 4:01pm
Well I reackon a fair number of people have evolved on this and many other issues, gay men included on this one.
Does call out culture recognize a statute of limitations?
Williamsmith
1-14-19, 5:38pm
Does call out culture recognize a statute of limitations?
It seems to depend on who you are.
HappyHiker
1-14-19, 6:06pm
Kamala Harris for 2020??
It seems to depend on who you are.
For instance, our local state representative, the golden-haired saviour of the state's progressives, resigned this weekend after some quite egregious behaviour directed towards women. Many of the local progressives are busy lining up behind him with "but, but, he did so much *good*, surely we can forgive this decade+ history of harassment and abuse of power to gain sexual access to women under him..."
By next year, who knows, he may be Governor.
Kamala Harris for 2020??
Finally someone with the courage to take on dangerous extremist groups like the Knights of Columbus.
ApatheticNoMore
1-14-19, 11:53pm
I like Tulsi Gabbard, a lot really. Elizabeth Warren is in, Bernie Sanders probably is but that's not official, it's becoming interesting.
Williamsmith
1-15-19, 9:05am
I’m interested in seeing just how long it takes the banished moderate wing of the Republican Party to fawn over Mitt Romney’s positioning for a challenge to the nomination in 2020. I’m sure they could talk themselves into thinking he could actually push the President aside. Even though, Mitt himself publicly proclaimed Trump will cruise to a second term victory. A Mitt candidacy would be entertaining and a probable third strike to a political career with a trifecta rejection to the executive office.
I’m interested in seeing just how long it takes the banished moderate wing of the Republican Party to fawn over Mitt Romney’s positioning for a challenge to the nomination in 2020. I’m sure they could talk themselves into thinking he could actually push the President aside. Even though, Mitt himself publicly proclaimed Trump will cruise to a second term victory. A Mitt candidacy would be entertaining and a probable third strike to a political career with a trifecta rejection to the executive office.
I don’t think that will happen, although it would be nice to see. Any truly effective challenge to Trump would need to come from the right.
If the current Pandora’s boxload of potential Democrat candidates compete with each other by taking positions attractive to the more extreme elements of their base, Trump can only benefit.
On the other hand, if they do like the majority of Dem candidates did in the midterms, and focus on issues that actually matter to people , like healthcare and taxes, they will do just fine.
The mobbed field we can expect on the Dem side this go-round, just like the mob of Republicans last time, confirms that if you can find a few backers, there's very little downside to a run for president. No matter how ridiculous or far-fetched your candidacy, thereafter you are forever remembered as a "former presidential candidate," rather than a Senator who was walloped in his re-election campaign (Santorum) or a CEO who ran a once-proud company into the ground (Fiorina).
Or, if you are a failed casino mogul and reality TV star with shady connections to Russia, there's really no downside.
I think the Dems will probably go with Beto ORourke although they should go with Bernie. I don't think O'Rourke or Gabbard have enough experience and seasoning. Lots of people think Elizabeth Warren has a good chance but strikes me as kind of a Jeb Bush campaigner, sort of tone deaf. And I loved her budget book, and am not against her or anything.
Williamsmith
1-15-19, 1:27pm
If Joe Biden wants the nomination, it’s his. Bernie had his one and only chance blocked by Hillary. There is no way to spark the same rock star interest again. Amy Klobuchar is an interesting possibility.
On the other hand, if they do like the majority of Dem candidates did in the midterms, and focus on issues that actually matter to people , like healthcare and taxes, they will do just fine.
I think you're right. Properly and soberly applied, the traditional formula of "we'll give you free stuff and send the bill to people you hate" has worked well in past general elections. The problem will be appealing to the differing appetites of the "base" during the primaries. The identitarians, the Catholic until proven innocent types, the Nieman Marxists and ICE-abolishers will be demanding their due.
Yeah, Amy Klobuchar has a lot of possibility, I think.
I hope the dems have looked long and hard over why they lost the 2016 election and who they want to support. I think there is a Hillary/Obama taint that will carry over to the old school candidates like Biden and Sanders. As much as I do or don't like them, someone should pull them off the stage. I saw headlines today saying some speculation like Pelosi could be the next president. I think that is a bad idea for a similar reason.
Other than that, I get the feeling that it might be a big free-for-all much like the GOP in the last election and there will be significantly thinning of the field.
iris lilies
1-15-19, 4:26pm
I hope the dems have looked long and hard over why they lost the 2016 election and who they want to support. I think there is a Hillary/Obama taint that will carry over to the old school candidates like Biden and Sanders. As much as I do or don't like them, someone should pull them off the stage. I saw headlines today saying some speculation like Pelosi could be the next president. I think that is a bad idea for a similar reason.
Other than that, I get the feeling that it might be a big free-for-all much like the GOP in the last election and there will be significantly thinning of the field.
Oooooooo Nancy Pelosi! I hadnt heard that.
Excellent!
Oooooooo Nancy Pelosi! I hadnt heard that.
Excellent!
That'd get us four more years of Trump easily.
Williamsmith
1-15-19, 4:37pm
Not trying to be critical but I never thought someone could seriously consider Nancy Pelosi for candidate for our local sewer authority much less the Presidency.......but there she is Speaker of the House. I would enjoy the entertainment value of seeing her trying to get casual in jeans and rolled up sleeves out in an Iowa cornfield. I bet the corn would grow a foot just while she was standing there talking about how she was going to fight for the little people and the farmers.
Williamsmith
1-15-19, 4:45pm
Let’s not forget Kirsten Gillibrand. She has the ability to change positions as easily as a chameleon changes colors. A very useful tool in the political realm. And she is right in that sweet spot of New York State.
Let’s not forget Kirsten Gillibrand. She has the ability to change positions as easily as a chameleon changes colors. A very useful tool in the political realm. And she is right in that sweet spot of New York State.
Her policy pirouettes are breathtaking. I've heard her convictions "evolve" faster than bacteria.
I liked her proclamation that the future was intersectional.
Sorry, but this habitual Pelosi-bashing among Republicans makes me LOL. She's as shrewd a politician as Congress has ever produced, and has bigger cojones than 99.9% of the men in Washington. When the Obama team was ready to throw in the towel on healthcare reform, she told them, "Tell me which votes you need," and then went and got them. She squashed the recent insurgency within her caucus without breaking a sweat.
In the current battle with Trump, we'll see who comes out on top.
Bae & Jane, what do you think about Inslee throwing his hat in?
I think the 2020 elections have potential to change politics as we currently know them forevermore. It's the perfect opportunity for the Democratic Party to either assert it's middle-of-the-road dominance over the Socialist wing, or not, as well as allow the Republican Party to either reclaim it's Grand Old Party roots, or not.
Ideally, after the primaries we'll enter the General Election with 4 candidates, a mainstream Democrat, a Socialist, an Independent who can reclaim the Republican brand, and the incumbent. That would eventually show us the real mood of the country.
Williamsmith
1-17-19, 6:25pm
I think the 2020 elections have potential to change politics as we currently know them forevermore. It's the perfect opportunity for the Democratic Party to either assert it's middle-of-the-road dominance over the Socialist wing, or not, as well as allow the Republican Party to either reclaim it's Grand Old Party roots, or not.
Ideally, after the primaries we'll enter the General Election with 4 candidates, a mainstream Democrat, a Socialist, an Independent who can reclaim the Republican brand, and the incumbent. That would eventually show us the real mood of the country.
I haven’t sensed any change in the mood of the people that elected Trump. Barring an economic meltdown or a serious illness, he seems likely to repeat. That is if the government shutdown still isn’t going on.
I haven’t sensed any change in the mood of the people that elected Trump. Barring an economic meltdown or a serious illness, he seems likely to repeat. That is if the government shutdown still isn’t going on.
I agree... judging by my Facebook feed with posts & memes by many of my conservative friends, they are still locked and loaded for Trump.
Trump still holds all the power over the gop. Anyone questioning that need only look at the fact that mitch mcconnell is absolutely not under any current circumstance going to do anything to buck trump and reopen the government. That plays well with 30ish% of the voting population. Not nearly enough to get him reelected.
What will happen with the dems is anyone’s guess. Personally i welcome a big primary. Lets see who has a compelling story, who has interesting policy ideas, etc. And, gasp, let the voters pick the candidate that best represents their needs dreams and hopes for a better future. With only 43% of americans in a recent poll saying they stand with the russian candidate the future has never looked brighter for the party of inclusion. Yes, maybe the dems will throw it all away with backbiting and whatnot but i’m more optimistic about the future of our country today than i ever have been in my 51 years on this planet.
My only question is how much popcorn should i buy to get through the next 22ish months of insanity. Judging from Colludy Rudy’s ever shifting story I suspect that it will be almost impossible to overpurchase. Probably should have rebalanced in favor of Orville Reddenbacher a while ago.
Williamsmith
1-18-19, 2:10am
That’s funny, I was thinking that same thing about my bourbon stash.
How do you format debates if it gets up to 25-30 candidates with no clear frontrunners? March Madness brackets? I thought the GOP thing that tiered them by polling numbers was strange.
I hear some O’Rourke groupies aren’t waiting for him to declare before starting to fund raise for him, eager for a Beto tomorrow.
When we had an open primary debates held at the state university were four canidates per night to get through the 17 or so who ran.
This 2014 gubernatorial debate is one of the reasons I love Vermont.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/3852611510001/#sp=show-clips
With two of the three largest states (CA and TX) participating in Super Tuesday early in March the field is likely to get narrowed down a lot more quickly.
Williamsmith
1-31-19, 10:49am
“Kamala Harris, For The People”........the thought of that catching on sends shivers down the spine of the 40% Trump base. After all I suppose some of them have actually analyzed why she is such a threat to Trump rather than just hate her because she is from California.
Maybe they have considered that a Trump rematch with a woman might not turn out so favorably again. “For the People” is much more adaptable to a campaign than “I’m with Her.” Which basically meant, “I don’t need you because I deserve this.”
Maybe they understand externally Harris represents the very opposite of Trump. Female, racially diverse (Indian/Jamaican) , polished in the art of verbal judo, and most of all......immigrant.
They might wince at the optics of a former President campaigning side by side in a photo op orgy leading up to elections. Obama/Harris campaign stops will look nothing like Obama/Clinton meet ups did. Obama has already labeled her “good looking”. An electorate that enjoys solid reality tv will love following those two around on the cable news.
Maybe they realize that in a nation so polarized by its chief executive, the next campaign will be a knock down drag out affair. And that this time around, tweeting and insulting Harris should backfire.
The only misstep the Democratic Party could make would be to allow Joe Biden to obtain the nomination thereby shooting themselves in the foot once more.
Teacher Terry
1-31-19, 11:06am
Besides Harris there are some other promising younger people like Betos. Biden needs to not enter the race.
and most of all......immigrant. .
She was born in California. If she were an immigrant she would not be eligible for the presidency.
Are you looking a generation back? Because in that case Trump's mother was an immigrant.
I see Spartacus is now officially in the arena.
As to the Beto angels of our nature, Mr. O’Rourke continues to gaze in rapt fascination at his navel and post his trips to the Dentist on social media.
I see Tulsi Gabbard is in it now. She got an early endorsement from David Duke, who apparently reasoned that since she wouldn’t intervene to defend anybody she wouldn’t intervene to defend Israel.
I find the timing of all of these posts from our conservative brethren to be rather funny. Is it to try to distract from the 19 months we have left to endure this MAGA (My Attorney Got Arrested) presidency?
I'm happy to let the primary system shake out the losers and then focus on the frontrunners when the date of the vote is much closer.
It is far beyond my poor powers to take attention away from the Twitter-in-Chief. I will admit to enjoying the spectacle of all the jockeying for position in this abundantly crowded field. Who can think of an original way to punish the rich? Who has politically incorrect skeletons lurking in their distant past? Who can attach a credible plan to the Green New Deal slogan? Who has the optimal DNA sequence to appeal to the identitarians? Who can best protect us from the machinations of the Knights of Columbus?
Will whoever emerges scarred and compromised from a raucous primary process be able to convince the general public they are still a better choice than our morbidly unpopular incumbent? You can’t convince me it won’t be fun to watch.
Who has politically incorrect skeletons lurking in their distant past?
That would be Elizabeth Warren, who kept listing herself as American Indian. A new instance on Texas just surfaced.
That would be Elizabeth Warren, who kept listing herself as American Indian. A new instance on Texas just surfaced.
Seems pretty tame compared to the legions of scary skeletons inhabiting Republican walk-in sized closets, if you ask me. It certainly wouldn't stop me from voting for her.
I can remember when dredging up the real or imagined sins of 30-40 years ago was limited to special cases. Fugitive Nazis and so forth.
Seems pretty tame compared to the legions of scary skeletons inhabiting Republican walk-in sized closets, if you ask me. It certainly wouldn't stop me from voting for her.
Indeed. Personally as regards the D side I'm much more concerned with Booker's chummy relationships with pharma and wall street. Maybe if Warren would just brag about grabbing females by their genitals or send hush payments to a few porn stars/hookers people would have more respect for her.
I'm happy to let the primary system shake out the losers and then focus on the frontrunners when the date of the vote is much closer.
I agree. As Ldahl points out in a later post we have an abundant field of potentially well qualified candidates. While I'm a political news junky and as such definitely have a short list of favorites already I'm definitely still in a persuadable mode. A lot can happen in the 13 months before super tuesday.
Indeed. Personally as regards the D side I'm much more concerned with Booker's chummy relationships with pharma and wall street.
And gutting the public schools of Newark to enrich private companies. He has been cozy with Betsy DeVos among others.
I see someone has begun planting stories that Amy Klobuchar is a mean boss who can’t retain good staff. I wasn’t even aware she had declared yet.
Williamsmith
2-7-19, 10:36pm
I’m wondering how all these candidates will invent a reason for change. The economy is firing on all cylinders, our military footprint is smaller than when Obama was in office, the average American has more spendable dollars in his pocket than ever, the media has been attacking Trump for going on three years and Rassmussen has him higher in popularity than Obama at the same point in his first four years....I could go on and on. The Russian investigation has failed to implicate Trump in wrong-doing and Democrats are rushing to burn their old yearbooks for fear of turning up blackfaced before the whole nation. Most never Trumpers are looking like bitter losers. I’ve never seen such hatred and disgust since maybe 1968 during the civil rights era.
Revolutions happen during times of rising not falling expectations. Health care, the loss of which would bankrupt many families in the event of a serious illness, and tuition rates spiraling far beyond the rate of inflation are issues.
I think the 2020 candidate selection process will be a fascinating spectacle to watch. I predict the Democrats fascination with race, gender and sexual preference will overpower traditional concerns such as foreign policy with the more pressing social concerns such as the existence of billionaires.
It's hard to imagine traditional politicians such as Joe Biden or Sherrod Brown gaining much traction without coming out of the closet, and I even suspect Bernie's Socialist bona fides may not overcome his burden of white maleness. If nothing else, it will be interesting to see how the party's rush to the left plays with the population at large.
Williamsmith
2-8-19, 8:25am
This is the era of urban Utopianism versus conventional rural white American rights. It’s not that black and white but it has the undertow of racism, sexism, entitlement and always the hint of “revolution”. In past struggles people whispered revolution because they knew it would cost them their property and family if not their lives. Now the “revolutionists” tattoo it on their bodies and shove it down their neighbors throat thinking the power of local politics has their back.
Serious illness has always bankrupted families and then they started over, picked up the pieces and when forward again. No one is forcing people to go into debt to pay for useless degrees in areas there is no hope of finding a decent wage job. But somehow people think they have to love their job. If you love your job you never will work a day in your life.
There has never been a better time for a principled, hard working person to make a good life for him or herself. If people would see how easy it is to outperform the competition....they could be comfortable.
But now, the Democrats have a chorus of candidates who want to promise easy welfare without any explanation whatsoever of how to pay for it. Urbanites who have simplified their lives to public transportation , 500 square foot apartments, and single without kids....figure it would be easy if everybody lived the express life. Rural Americans are repulsed by the “European” adaptations.
Democrats are moving farther out from shore.
Will the green new deal become a primary litmus test? Will it require political courage for candidates to demur from promising “economic security for those unable or unwilling to work”?
The DNC didn't hand pick our wonderful new array of politicians--they were freely chosen by their constituents and voted, sometimes overwhelmingly*, into office by their constituents. And there will be more after the 2020 election. The stranglehold rich old white men--wholly owned by billionaires and corporations--have on our government is slipping away, though given their proclivity for breaking the law and getting away with it, they may yet prevail.
I doubt anyone would bat an eye at "the existence of billionaires" if they paid a fair share of taxes and contributed something to the common good instead of buying off politicians and despoiling our environment. Too few do.
*Ocasio-Cortez won her district with 78.2% of the vote.
Teacher Terry
2-8-19, 1:13pm
The average person is getting a tax shock that they are paying more in taxes not less as trump promised. I saw some interviews in Iowa and people that voted for him are mad.
The average person is getting a tax shock that they are paying more in taxes not less as trump promised. I saw some interviews in Iowa and people that voted for him are mad.
He promised to help DACA kids, and that Mexico would pay for our insulting "Berlin Wall." And that he would support HIV/AIDS funding after (again) cutting research funding, and firing the entire AIDS advisory council. And--with his hand on the Bible--he promised that he would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." His word is worthless.
Teacher Terry
2-8-19, 1:45pm
He has always been a liar but people are easily fooled. I have to say I don’t feel bad for anyone that voted for him. They are getting what they deserve. I do feel bad for all the others hurt by him especially the dreamers and immigrants.
Donald Trump is manifestly ridiculous and a historic embarrassment. And yet the growing throng of opposition candidates seem eager to jump the shark rather than let an easy win drop into their lap.
Wealth taxes abandoned by Scandinavia. Elimination of ICE, billionaires and private health insurance. Economic security for those unwilling to work. Free stuff for everybody.
LDAHL, cynicism doesn't become you, even though you embrace it.
"Wealth taxes" worked just fine after WWII, some form of single payer would save us money rather than cost us. ICE is unnecessarily cruel, and not particularly competent--at least in its current iteration--maybe Stephen Miller is working behind the scenes. It needs oversight or overhaul.
"Free stuff for everybody" is just a right-wing talking point; in a democracy or a democratic republic, the citizens get a say in how their taxes are spent. Even though this very rich country could certainly provide a basic stipend for every one of us if we didn't have tax loopholes, tax avoiders, tax-cutting legislators, and tax cheats, most of us are happy enough making our own way in life, only wanting our government to have our backs should we falter. We shouldn't have to lose our houses and everything we own should we contract a serious illness. We should get more for our taxes than war and graft and a sleazy grifting overclass.
Teacher Terry
2-8-19, 3:08pm
Totally agree Jane.
"Free stuff for everybody" is just a right-wing talking point;
Free health care and free education for all are a mainstay of the new democratic socialist party, and now free welfare for those "unwilling to work" is a part of the Green New Deal initiative. If the right-wing assumes the concept as a talking point, it is to remind the gullible that nothing is free.
Teacher Terry
2-8-19, 4:29pm
Just watched part of the AG interview and he is Trump’s mini me. He either lied or evaded. It was pitiful.
It was pitiful.
Yes, watching the Democrats turn an agency oversight meeting into an intensely partisan attack was painful to watch.
Teacher Terry
2-8-19, 4:38pm
The Democrats acted like mature adults and he a spoiled child. I hope they can block this moron.
The Democrats acted like mature adults and he a spoiled child. I hope they can block this moron.
I especially enjoyed seeing the Democrat Congressman (who's name escapes me) ask him if he was aware that the DOJ was created in the 1960's to address civil rights violations and then refuse to allow him to correct the premise and point out that it was formed during the U.S. Grant administration in 1870. There's apparently nothing worse than spoiled children correcting the mature adults.
Free health care and free education for all are a mainstay of the new democratic socialist party, and now free welfare for those "unwilling to work" is a part of the Green New Deal initiative. If the right-wing assumes the concept as a talking point, it is to remind the gullible that nothing is free.
Negotiation requires that you always ask for more than you expect to get; I'm sure that's what's in play here. I've mostly been "unwilling to work" but I did it anyway.
I'm guessing the right uses that particular talking point to rile up their base against a nebulous enemy. It's kind of at odds with their hatred of undocumented workers though, who mostly work their fingers to the bone for substandard wages.
Or the spectacle Republican Representative Matt Gaetz made at a hearing on gun violence, trying to have Parkland parents ejected, and insisting that the real problem is those scary brown people from south of the border, and we need to build a wall. Apparently, he hasn't studied the subject much.
I'm guessing the right uses that particular talking point to rile up their base against a nebulous enemy. The Democratic Socialists no longer operate within the political fringes, they're anything but nebulous.
LDAHL, cynicism doesn't become you, even though you embrace it.
Is it cynical to doubt that the country at large is ripe for a historic lurch to the left? I don’t think so. Is it cynical to suspect a crowded field of candidates eager to appeal to primary voters will make promises the general electorate will be less enthusiastic about? I don’t think so. Is it cynical to to promise benefits to the public you know you can’t possibly deliver? I think so.
I don't see Democratic Socialists as the enemy--I was referring to the "unwilling to work" lazy others, supposedly lying around collecting large amounts of money while contributing little or nothing. Actually, that sounds a lot like the ruling class to me.
I've been a registered Independent for 30+ years, but I admire European-style socialism. With some American tweaks, I think it could work here. What we have--I'd say a kakocracy--clearly isn't working for most of us.
Polls show people to be more left than they describe themselves. Medicare for all polls really well for example, even with republicans. I’m sure if the question was ‘do you want socialized medical care?’ It would not poll nearly as well. Probably more in line with tax cuts for the rich and racist walls to keep the scary brown people out.
Democrats have been running to the middle for decades now and that hasnt been particularly effective. Trumo’s base is Fired Up. The only way the dems will win is if they get their base equally fired up. Milk toast middle of the road policies will fire up approximately one person.
I'm very fond of many of our socialist institutions, particularly our socialist libraries, our socialist national parks, our socialist Coast Guard, our socialist fire departments, our socialist highway system, etc. etc. Capitalist medicine, prisons, etc. have proven themselves inferior, if not criminal (priced insulin lately?). Profit may work for Louboutin shoes, but the worship of profit poisons institutions designed to benefit the commons.
The other thing i find interesting is that when we elect people to run the government who claim ‘government can’t do anything right’ that often turns out to be the case. I know correlation isn’t necessarily causation but the coincidence makes one wonder.
ApatheticNoMore
2-9-19, 2:33am
I don't see Democratic Socialists as the enemy--I was referring to the "unwilling to work" lazy others, supposedly lying around collecting large amounts of money while contributing little or nothing.
For every unwilling to work person (and I don't deny they exist, but I suspect they mostly live off relatives not the government) there are several who would give nearly anything just to be able work and earn money, but can't find a job. Now if we could somehow make sure that there were jobs enough for everyone (it would be good if they paid enough to live off of as well), I guess THEN and only then we would have room to complain about people not willing to work.
So I take it all people who criticize people for not being willing to work are advocates of a job guarantee, otherwise there is no room to talk (and frankly I'm skeptical that that would work, it's not my favorite approach, but the necessity to advocate for that is not on me, as I'm not the one complaining about people not working or saying they have to work to get basic services, so I don't have to make sure there are jobs for everyone just so they can get medical care etc.).
So I take it all people who criticize people for not being willing to work are advocates of a job guarantee, otherwise there is no room to talk
I think these are the same folks who oppose abortion but don't want to provide for the unwanted children once they are born.
Williamsmith
2-9-19, 8:43am
I think these are the same folks who oppose abortion but don't want to provide for the unwanted children once they are born.
Is this one of the justifications for abortion? Because “people” don’t want to support children, it’s okay to justify an abortion? So better not to have lived than to have lived a childhood of neglect?
Perhaps “people” oppose abortion because there seems ample evidence that it is far too convenient to eliminate an “inconvenience.” In some cases.
For every unwilling to work person (and I don't deny they exist, but I suspect they mostly live off relatives not the government) there are several who would give nearly anything just to be able work and earn money, but can't find a job. Now if we could somehow make sure that there were jobs enough for everyone (it would be good if they paid enough to live off of as well), I guess THEN and only then we would have room to complain about people not willing to work.
So I take it all people who criticize people for not being willing to work are advocates of a job guarantee, otherwise there is no room to talk (and frankly I'm skeptical that that would work, it's not my favorite approach, but the necessity to advocate for that is not on me, as I'm not the one complaining about people not working or saying they have to work to get basic services, so I don't have to make sure there are jobs for everyone just so they can get medical care etc.).
The unemployment rate is very low, so there must be quite a few jobs out there. And many feel that we need more immigrants to fill jobs that can’t be filled now. Maybe many don’t want to work the jobs that are out there.
Williamsmith
2-9-19, 8:50am
The Democratic Socialists no longer operate within the political fringes, they're anything but nebulous.
Ocasio-Cortez is Single handedly going to scare the American voting public right into the lap of Republicans. She is not nebulous....but in your face. Her Green New Deal makes the new generation politician crowd appear as fanatical with her elimination of automobiles, power plays and remodeling of buildings within tens years and hopefully the slaughter of all bovines? Judge her carefully. Untrustworthy in one , untrustworthy in all.
I didnt get the impression that yppeg was trying to justify abortion. I think they were just trying to point out that some (maybe a lot) of the pro-life crowd are not so much pro-life as just pro-forced-birth. Someone who is ok with kids being seperated from their parents and put in baby jails or who complains about their taxes being too high because supposedly lazy people get food stamps that buy food for kids is not pro-life. Just pro forced birth.
And if they actually cared about reducing abortions they would be in favor of real sex ed instead if BS abstinance only sex ed and they would be vigorously in favor of easily available birth control. But it’s not about reducing abortion. It’s about being moralizing busybodies.
I’m thinking of throwing my hat in the ring. My promise is making everyone a millionaire. If your currently a citizen and not a millionaire my administration will send you a check. And since socialism is now favored, it will be a million Venezuela VEF.
I didnt get the impression that yppeg was trying to justify abortion. I think they were just trying to point out that some (maybe a lot) of the pro-life crowd are not so much pro-life as just pro-forced-birth. Someone who is ok with kids being seperated from their parents and put in baby jails or who complains about their taxes being too high because supposedly lazy people get food stamps that buy food for kids is not pro-life. Just pro forced birth.
And if they actually cared about reducing abortions they would be in favor of real sex ed instead if BS abstinance only sex ed and they would be vigorously in favor of easily available birth control. But it’s not about reducing abortion. It’s about being moralizing busybodies.
Why stop at pre birth? Maybe we should give parents a few years to try the kids out. If it’s not working out for them they can euthanize them. That would help the environment and reduce the cost of caring for them.
Williamsmith
2-9-19, 9:01am
The unemployment rate is very low, so there must be quite a few jobs out there. And many feel that we need more immigrants to fill jobs that can’t be filled now. Maybe many don’t want to work the jobs that are out there.
Part of the reason we have immigration laws and need to enforce them....and part of that are physical barriers.....is that cheap illegal labor drives down wages for all laborers. This is hardly a new idea. My ancestor owned a silverware and dinnerware factory. He imported Asian workers for production and replaced local workers. He became rather well off but was not respected by the community.
Williamsmith
2-9-19, 9:03am
I didnt get the impression that yppeg was trying to justify abortion. I think they were just trying to point out that some (maybe a lot) of the pro-life crowd are not so much pro-life as just pro-forced-birth. Someone who is ok with kids being seperated from their parents and put in baby jails or who complains about their taxes being too high because supposedly lazy people get food stamps that buy food for kids is not pro-life. Just pro forced birth.
And if they actually cared about reducing abortions they would be in favor of real sex ed instead if BS abstinance only sex ed and they would be vigorously in favor of easily available birth control. But it’s not about reducing abortion. It’s about being moralizing busybodies.
I seem to remember that their moralizing is protected by the first amendment and so is some hate speech against unborn children.
To side comment on the no abortion/care for the children idea:
An overarching prolife ethic would care about the quality of people’s lives once they are out of the womb also.
I would define prolife this way:
No abortion
No war
No capital punishment
Healthcare for all
universal basic income
Jp1 you have read me correctly. Thank you.
Williamsmith
2-9-19, 9:32am
To side comment on the no abortion/care for the children idea:
An overarching prolife ethic would care about the quality of people’s lives once they are out of the womb also.
I would define prolife this way:
No abortion
No war
No capital punishment
Healthcare for all
universal basic income
As long as we have a Democratic Party which celebrates the ease with which a life can be terminated....none of the other profile participants above will be possible. This kind of policy hurts the very classes that it alledges to help. The black community is a fraction of its potential because abortion has been accepted as the best means for improving one’s own life....by eliminating another life. It has reduced the influence of the black community by approximately 15 million since the 70s.
To side comment on the no abortion/care for the children idea:
An overarching prolife ethic would care about the quality of people’s lives once they are out of the womb also.
I would define prolife this way:
No abortion
No war
No capital punishment
Healthcare for all
universal basic income
I agree.
WS, whatever one's reason for being pro-life may be, the "strength in numbers" argument for supporting minority communities by forcing them to have children they don't want and don't have means to care for makes no sense to me.
Williamsmith
2-9-19, 11:35am
I agree.
WS, whatever one's reason for being pro-life may be, the "strength in numbers" argument for supporting minority communities by forcing them to have children they don't want and don't have means to care for makes no sense to me.
There is a difference between permitting it, condoning it and facilitating it. You and I have a fundamental difference of opinion as to what our country has adopted as its characterization of the abortion solution. I say it has resulted in nothing less than genocide of millions in the name of marginalizing an entire race because they are “poor” or “disadvantages” or “means deprived”. Using abortion of otherwise potential created beings as a treatment or cure for a societal deficiency is abhorrent to me. Let them chose but do not apply fertilizer to weeds.
Using abortion of otherwise potential created beings as a treatment or cure for a societal deficiency is abhorrent to me. Let them chose but do not apply fertilizer to weeds.
How can you freely choose something if it's illegal? And I'm not a total pragmatist when it comes to abortion--like you, I fervently believe in hope and the potential of all human beings--a belief I lived out by choosing to bring an unexpected child into the world when even my mother told me not to because of the circumstances I was in at the time. So I get what you're saying. But that was a personal choice and I am glad I didn't have the government as a barrier. [For the record, I am vehemently opposed to late-term abortion.]
But the right-wing "sanctity of life" platform, as Tammy suggests, is very inconsistent and hypocritical to say the least.
Williamsmith
2-9-19, 12:05pm
Well, Catherine, we have had the benefit of statistical analysis of the “program” since its inception in the 70s and it is patently obvious who has suffered most from the elimination of unwanted people. It has been the poor..and especially the black community. Had Hitler just been patient, he could have eliminated the Jews by simply placing them into poverty and providing an easy means for them to get rid of their own. Democrats love to establish classes of people that have no ability for upward mobility and then they feel good about marginalizing them to the point where their vote doesn’t matter.
Your tolerance of an abortion based simply on its unwanted status and its unexpectedness is surprising given your personal convictions of life’s potential and our ability as created beings to lift ourselves out of misery and into enlightenment. At least we the living, are afforded that chance.
Your tolerance of an abortion based simply on its unwanted status and its unexpectedness is surprising given your personal convictions of life’s potential and our ability as created beings to lift ourselves out of misery and into enlightenment. At least we the living, are afforded that chance.
My decision to have this baby under extreme circumstances was made only after I fearlessly searched my heart and soul and was able to finally determine that I had enough love to offer another child and enough emotional resources to nurture it the way it should be nurtured. I would find physical resources one way or another, and most notably through the support of my family, which not every woman has. That was my decision to make. If I had made a different decision I would have been fine with it, because it was very early in my pregnancy. But, in any case, it was my decision, and I respect the right of another woman to make her own.
And I'm not clear on this:
Democrats love to establish classes of people that have no ability for upward mobility and then they feel good about marginalizing them to the point where their vote doesn’t matter.
How is poverty and class marginalization the Democrats' fault?
Late-term abortions are almost always done because of gross abnormalities in the fetus and/or serious threats to the woman's health. I strongly believe decisions in these matters should be left to the woman and her doctor, and not subject to outside opinions.
ApatheticNoMore
2-9-19, 1:48pm
Do blacks statistically have any less kids than whites? If not then both limit their fertility period. Abortion can be outlawed when birth control is 100% effective, until then it can be rare (as birth control is fairly effective afterall ...). ACA did a lot to make birth control widely available, it's why people rushed to make use of long term more expensive birth control when they feared it would become less accessible. Of course birth control should be free for everyone including long term birth control, vasectomies etc..
I watched Warren's announcement speech. It was all about economic populism and political reform. There was no mention of foreign policy that I heard, though the audio did cut out at times.
ApatheticNoMore
2-9-19, 2:07pm
I watched Warren's announcement speech. It was all about economic populism and political reform. There was no mention of foreign policy that I heard, though the audio did cut out at times.
she would probably continue existing foreign policy unless in the future she shows herself more hawkish than that (which might be possible from what I've heard, and that would make Bernie a better bet, if he would run, as I don't think he'd radically change foreign policy either but he's never struck me as being more hawkish than the norm). Tulsi Gabbard is the only one really criticizing foreign policy as far as I've heard, not that I really think she has much chance.
ApatheticNoMore
2-9-19, 2:10pm
So better not to have lived than to have lived a childhood of neglect?
actually it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of neglected (and abused) children thought this and many times, they didn't ask to be born (nor neglected), but then noone ever asked them.
But they will eventually be glad they lived? Well,I don't know, Hamlet. One is alive and so it just IS and usually one makes the best of it (except for those who choose to end it due to the emotional pain and they are probably disproportionately those neglected and abused). But it takes decades to even kind of recover from a neglectful childhood.
"I will never be safe
I will never be sane
I will always be weird inside
I will always be lame"
-- everclear
and that's the truth about neglect (in that song a father abandoning). So no it's not axiomatic to me that it is better to bring kids into bad situations.
Williamsmith
2-9-19, 3:23pm
Placing legal restrictions on abortion is from what I have researched largely ineffective and so it is a better argument to say women are forced into a dangerous situation of seeking abortion on any terms. But governments should not be carrying on publicly funded campaigns to encourage elective abortion which target the most vulnerable sectors of society....which is what Democrats do and continue to justify with some of the excuses that have been repeated here under the guise of women’s rights. China leads all nations in abortions and their reason for this is numerically obvious.
I'm curious about all these democratic statements encouraging people to get abortions. Perhaps i've just missed them. Can you share some links?
Williamsmith
2-9-19, 4:04pm
I'm curious about all these democratic statements encouraging people to get abortions. Perhaps i've just missed them. Can you share some links?
If your idea of corroboration involves providing links from the internet.....then you’ll need to do the research, I have no interest being asked to sit for a treat.
You're the one making the claim. What I've heard has always been along the lines of Hillary Clinton: "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare."
Williamsmith
2-9-19, 4:29pm
You're the one making the claim. What I've heard has always been along the lines of Hillary Clinton: "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare."
Perhaps you can tell me what she has done to make them....”rare.”
Nobody is encouraging abortion--except unwilling fathers like these:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/25/a-republican-theme-on-abortions-its-ok-for-me-evil-for-thee
Most of us just support women's right to control their own bodies, no "encouragement" involved.
I find it perplexing that the many of the men who have no problem sending young people to war, are indifferent to the plight of immigrants, the poor and sick, wounded veterans. and suffering in general (as evidenced by Republican policies) seem to get apoplectic about the fate of insensate collections of human cells, most of whom wouldn't rate a moment's concern from the same men should they be born.
Perhaps you can tell me what she has done to make them....”rare.”
https://rewire.news/article/2016/08/24/hillary-clinton-played-critical-role-making-emergency-contraception-accessible/
Perhaps you can tell me what she has done to make them....”rare.”
Promoted birth control and sex education, for two.
Williamsmith
2-9-19, 5:46pm
Nobody is encouraging abortion--except unwilling fathers like these:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/25/a-republican-theme-on-abortions-its-ok-for-me-evil-for-thee
Most of us just support women's right to control their own bodies, no "encouragement" involved.
I find it perplexing that the many of the men who have no problem sending young people to war, are indifferent to the plight of immigrants, the poor and sick, wounded veterans. and suffering in general (as evidenced by Republican policies) seem to get apoplectic about the fate of insensate collections of human cells, most of whom wouldn't rate a moment's concern from the same men should they be born.
To describe the presence of fetal development within a womb as “insensate collections of human cells” only serves to provide ethical insensitivity to potential decision makers.
I'm very fond of many of our socialist institutions, particularly our socialist libraries, our socialist national parks, our socialist Coast Guard, our socialist fire departments, our socialist highway system, etc. etc. Capitalist medicine, prisons, etc. have proven themselves inferior, if not criminal (priced insulin lately?). Profit may work for Louboutin shoes, but the worship of profit poisons institutions designed to benefit the commons.
Hear! Hear! Exactly Jane.
To describe the presence of fetal development within a womb as “insensate collections of human cells” only serves to provide ethical insensitivity to potential decision makers.
I think the "insensate collections of human cells" is a pretty apt description for a short period of time, I'm not sure how long but let's say it's around the 8 to 10 week range. The problem with the pro-abortion proponents is their refusal to acknowledge that sometime after that point, that group of cells becomes a defenseless person, they can't acknowledge the point because then they have to argue that it's ok to kill a baby, so it's very important to repeat over and over again that the baby only exists after birth, if it's allowed to exist that long.
It's also important to the cause to loudly proclaim that anyone against unrestricted abortion is a hypocrite for whatever reason, thinking that gives them the moral high ground. It doesn't. They're ultimately on the wrong side of that argument.
I think the "insensate collections of human cells" is a pretty apt description for a short period of time, I'm not sure how long but let's say it's around the 8 to 10 week range. The problem with the pro-abortion proponents is their refusal to acknowledge that sometime after that point, that group of cells becomes a defenseless person, they can't acknowledge the point because then they have to argue that it's ok to kill a baby, so it's very important to repeat over and over again that the baby only exists after birth, if it's allowed to exist that long.
It's also important to the cause to loudly proclaim that anyone against unrestricted abortion is a hypocrite for whatever reason, thinking that gives them the moral high ground. It doesn't. They're ultimately on the wrong side of that argument.
Which is a good argument for making abortion readily-available--with none of the barriers conservatives regularly construct--lack of facilities, waiting periods, pointless ultrasounds, hospital privileges, etc.etc. Clearly, early abortions are the better option. If you've read up on the subject, you know that some 90+% of procedures are performed in the first trimester. Better access to facilities would likely increase that statistic, along with the 66% that are performed in the first eight weeks. Universal access to all kinds of birth control and comprehensive sex education would likely reduce much of the demand.
Which is a good argument for making abortion readily-available--with none of the barriers conservatives regularly construct--lack of facilities, waiting periods, pointless ultrasounds, hospital privileges, etc.etc. Abortions are readily available. I think a lot of the attempted barriers you mention are to ensure informed consent. If a potential new mother has only listened to pro abortionists, they may not realize this is a bigger deal than as presented.
Teacher Terry
2-9-19, 10:17pm
A friend of mine had 3 grown children at 40. Stayed in a hotel and was raped while she was sleeping. Became pregnant with twins and was not sexually active. She had a abortion at 6 weeks. So you men think she should have been forced to have these babies?
Abortions are readily available. I think a lot of the attempted barriers you mention are to ensure informed consent. If a potential new mother has only listened to pro abortionists, they may not realize this is a bigger deal than as presented.
Louisiana is nearly down to one provider for the whole state, and access in many other states is problematic. Texas, with its vast spaces, requires many abortion seekers to drive more than 100 miles to a provider. So a poor woman will have to pay for gas and maybe lodging--for days if they require jumping through the hoops mentioned above. And most of them are poor. Rich women can always get safe abortions--even if they have to go abroad. See Sherri Finbine.
You might give women a little more credit for understanding the issue.
Williamsmith
2-9-19, 10:28pm
A friend of mine had 3 grown children at 40. Stayed in a hotel and was raped while she was sleeping. Became pregnant with twins and was not sexually active. She had a abortion at 6 weeks. So you men think she should have been forced to have these babies?
Why do you make this baseless assumption? In the form of an indictment of insensitivity?
If the issue is really ‘women need to be fully cognizant of what they are doing’ perhaps we need to add abortion to the comprehensive sex ed curriculum that we should be teaching our kids/teens. Then if/when a woman is in a situation where she’s considering one we could be cinfident that she’d already been educated on the subject. But since that whole line of justification is probably a dishonest explanation of the various laws i suppose my suggestion would be a nonstarter.
Williamsmith
2-9-19, 10:37pm
Louisiana is nearly down to one provider for the whole state, and access in many other states is problematic. Texas, with its vast spaces, requires many abortion seekers to drive more than 100 miles to a provider. So a poor woman will have to pay for gas and maybe lodging--for days if they require jumping through the hoops mentioned above. And most of them are poor. Rich women can always get safe abortions--even if they have to go abroad. See Sherri Finbine.
You might give women a little more credit for understanding the issue.
There are more than a half million abortions performed on a yearly basis. That hardly seems like a number that reflects a difficult to obtain medical procedure.
The difficulty, or lack thereof, depends on where one lives. In texas, as jane mentions, quite difficult, especially if one is poor and the requirements turn it into a multiday process. In NYC, probably not so much.
Williamsmith
2-10-19, 10:09am
By the end of next weekend, we should have a ton of new quotes about immigration from the already declared candidates and from some of the potentials. A perfect mid February entertainment spree......this pending partial government shutdown or emergency declaration promises to be a real barnburner.
Diverting some of the military budget to building the wall is something neither side will get behind. I see Hillary has weighed in with her expertise on emergency situations declaring the border crisis to be a prank or gimmick. Hillary knows a crisis when she gets awakened to one. Her Benghazi handling is a key component of her resume. And add to the places she hasn’t visited.....rural Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin......the southern border.
I cant wait to hear all the experts weigh in.
I was looking over the list of declared candidates today and realized that now that Elizabeth Warren has jumped into the fray, we're just one cowboy short of the Village People.
Williamsmith
2-10-19, 10:17pm
Here’s one of the Democrats current front runners laughing about how she threatened to prosecute truants parents and put them in jail. Tip to Kamala...don’t laugh while you are bragging about jailing poor minority parents ....the same ones you need to vote for you. “For The People!” Same prosecutor who refused to investigate aggressive bank foreclosures, OneWest and Steve Mnuchin.
https://youtu.be/DhJwmIPRmYk
iris lilies
2-10-19, 11:44pm
I was looking over the list of declared candidates today and realized that now that Elizabeth Warren has jumped into the fray, we're just one cowboy short of the Village People.
Haha!
Our former governor, John Hickenlooper, seems like his hat is in. And our senator, Mike Bennett. They are both being called centrists. I think that is what it is going to take to bring voters over from the right. Unfortunately it's the more radical or old school politicians that get the media attention so they are relative unknowns. I imagine some of the vast field is hoping for a VP or cabinet position if the dems get in.
Williamsmith
2-11-19, 10:20am
It will be a long time before a “centrist” will win the Whitehouse ...from either side. As long as the anti-establishment pro-swamp voting block resides in the key electoral college states it will take some fringe speak to get noticed.
This whinging about "virtue signalling" just makes me laugh, as the right practically invented it. How could we forget "family values" and the "moral majority" not to mention the constant pearl-clutching over other people's abortions (post birth kids--who cares...) And all totally hypocritical, it turns out. I'll take Democratic virtue any day, and Democratic candidates, in all their varied splendor.
The Moral Majority was 30-40 years ago. And looking at the current landscape, they don’t seem to have made much of a lasting impression. I think it’s safe to stop worrying about them.
The Moral Majority was 30-40 years ago. And looking at the current landscape, they don’t seem to have made much of a lasting impression. I think it’s safe to stop worrying about them.
I wish you'd warned me that you were going to make a joke. I just snorted coffee all over my keyboard.
Williamsmith
2-11-19, 1:18pm
The Democratic National Committee just announced their theme song for the Convention......
https://youtu.be/oLwccfUjdUk
"The Moral Majority was 30-40 years ago. And looking at the current landscape, they don’t seem to have made much of a lasting impression. I think it’s safe to stop worrying about them."
I'll be eternally grateful if you're right.
the only lasting impression they left me with was disgust.
I have a strong aversion to prigs (even though I'm descended from Puritans, or maybe because.)
Williamsmith
2-11-19, 1:50pm
This whinging about "virtue signalling" just makes me laugh, as the right practically invented it. How could we forget "family values" and the "moral majority" not to mention the constant pearl-clutching over other people's abortions (post birth kids--who cares...) And all totally hypocritical, it turns out. I'll take Democratic virtue any day, and Democratic candidates, in all their varied splendor.
Seven minutes of the most repulsive Democratic hypocrisy broadcast since George Wallace....also a Democrat racist.
https://youtu.be/9hVeY2NSblc
What Northam did was juvenile and reprehensible, and I don't much care how it plays out, but his actions pale in light of Brett Kavanaugh's--who was elevated to the Supreme Court with a cursory non-investigation.
ApatheticNoMore
2-11-19, 2:11pm
This whinging about "virtue signalling" just makes me laugh, as the right practically invented it.
I don't get it, I literally never have, what's wrong about trying to be virtuous? Do people have that much problem with trying to be ethical per se
(this does not mean I might not have problems with certain ethical systems, but I don't think it's a problem in general with "virtue" per se is all).
Now it may get mentioned sometimes in conversation, but I don't think one should be announcing one's virtue from the rooftops 24/7 because remember HUMILITY is also a virtue! :~) Is that just the point of it, to retain some humility? Then, of course. And anyway there are circumstances extreme enough to drive the best of us to less than ethical behavior so it's not just that.
I don't get it, I literally never have, what's wrong about trying to be virtuous? Do people have that much problem with trying to be ethical per se
(this does not mean I might not have problems with certain ethical systems, but I don't think it's a problem in general with "virtue" per se is all).
Now it may get mentioned sometimes in conversation, but I don't think one should be announcing one's virtue from the rooftops 24/7 because remember HUMILITY is also a virtue! :~) Is that just the point of it, to retain some humility? Then, of course. And anyway there are circumstances extreme enough to drive the best of us to less than ethical behavior so it's not just that.
It's all just marketing and spin--was it Lee Atwater or Karl Rove who advised Republicans to attack their opponents' strengths?
The average person is getting a tax shock that they are paying more in taxes not less as trump promised. I saw some interviews in Iowa and people that voted for him are mad.
CNBC did a story on this claim a few days ago and MSNBC touched on it (without going into any details) today. It seems that some people are not getting as large a refund as they have in recent years due to the IRS changing their withholding tables. That doesn't mean that people are paying more taxes but as an MSNBC pundit noted this morning, 90% of our citizenry cannot tell you how much they pay in federal taxes but 100% can tell you how much their refund is.
Teacher Terry
2-11-19, 4:02pm
We try to be as close to the break even point as we can so they aren’t using our money for free.
What Northam did was juvenile and reprehensible, and I don't much care how it plays out, but his actions pale in light of Brett Kavanaugh's--who was elevated to the Supreme Court with a cursory non-investigation.
Agree. Another instance of "SO/Selective Outrage."
CNBC did a story on this claim a few days ago and MSNBC touched on it (without going into any details) today. It seems that some people are not getting as large a refund as they have in recent years due to the IRS changing their withholding tables. That doesn't mean that people are paying more taxes but as an MSNBC pundit noted this morning, 90% of our citizenry cannot tell you how much they pay in federal taxes but 100% can tell you how much their refund is.
Having managed a payroll for many years, I can attest to the truth of this. Far too many people, including well-educated professionals, seem incapable of the most rudimentary tax planning. They make no connection between withholding and tax liability, have no idea of the tax impact of various benefits or how to think about retirement. Nor are they interested in educating themselves when we offer opportunities to learn. It’s sad and aggravating.
iris lilies
2-12-19, 11:38am
Having managed a payroll for many years, I can attest to the truth of this. Far too many people, including well-educated professionals, seem incapable of the most rudimentary tax planning. They make no connection between withholding and tax liability, have no idea of the tax impact of various benefits or how to think about retirement. Nor are they interested in educating themselves when we offer opportunities to learn. It’s sad and aggravating.
Well, in our defense, there is also “tax planning fatigue” where at every turn there is a tax issue, and to determine the overall best course is difficult. I don’t want to live my financial life according to the tax man.
Well, in our defense, there is also “tax planning fatigue” where at every turn there is a tax issue, and to determine the overall best course is difficult. I don’t want to live my financial life according to the tax man.
For most people, it’s really not that complicated. But like a lot of personal finance issues, people seem to find it too tedious to deal with. Personally I think it’s worth the investment of an occasional Saturday morning.
For most people, it’s really not that complicated. But like a lot of personal finance issues, people seem to find it too tedious to deal with. Personally I think it’s worth the investment of an occasional Saturday morning.
I do my own taxes and I don't think I'm stupid about it, but I also find it very tedious because my left brain is not my strong suit. Payroll taxes and withholding are "hidden" in the sense that you get your net check and you don't really read the YTD stuff on the stub. (Actually, come to think of it, I used to do that frequently.) But no one can say that taxes are easy or fun (except for you LDAHL:).
This year I was surprised to see that Intuit recommended I take the standard deduction. I haven't taken the standard deduction in years, and I was curious to see how the doubling of it would impact me. My taxes this year are lower than previous years, but then again, I earned slightly less. Now if only my self-employment taxes could be lower.
I know what I pay in federal taxes because I have it taken out of my pension. And I'm left-brained enough. But I find the whole subject of money/finance/economics so incredibly boring that I could read econ books as soporifics. I certainly didn't inherit my grandfather's accountant genes, that's for sure, unless there's some connection between editing spreadsheets and editing prose.
I always liked math and regret not studying more of it. Next life...
I’ve been wanting to ask this question for a while...genuinely curious.
For the left-leaning folks, how do you rank your candidates? It is gender first, then race, then sexual identity? Does a black woman out rank a gay guy?
I’ve been wanting to ask this question for a while...genuinely curious.
For the left-leaning folks, how do you rank your candidates? It is gender first, then race, then sexual identity? Does a black woman out rank a gay guy?
There's an app for that:
https://intersectionalityscore.com/
I’ve been wanting to ask this question for a while...genuinely curious.
For the left-leaning folks, how do you rank your candidates? It is gender first, then race, then sexual identity? Does a black woman out rank a gay guy?
I look at their past record on the issues, what they plan to focus on if they get elected, etc. I don't particularly care about their gender, etc. one of the good things about the Upcoming D primary is that we're seeing a cross section of candidates that actually look like America so hopefully people will stop obsessing about the 'oh look, it's the first <insert minority group here> to run for president! Do you think America is ready for that?' side show and actually listen to what the candidates have to say.
I’ve been wanting to ask this question for a while...genuinely curious.
For the left-leaning folks, how do you rank your candidates? It is gender first, then race, then sexual identity? Does a black woman out rank a gay guy?
Wow, hmm.
Actually, I rank candidates according to how closely their platform matches what I want to see for this country coupled with leadership ability. Nothing else matters.
There's an app for that:
https://intersectionalityscore.com/
I have an intersectionality score of 6. Does that mean I fail?
I know what I pay in federal taxes because I have it taken out of my pension. And I'm left-brained enough. But I find the whole subject of money/finance/economics so incredibly boring that I could read econ books as soporifics. I certainly didn't inherit my grandfather's accountant genes, that's for sure, unless there's some connection between editing spreadsheets and editing prose.
I always liked math and regret not studying more of it. Next life...
I say unto you when Our Lady of Twitter redeems personkind through the grace of the GND, and those who labor not exercise their right to the taxpayer’s substance, then shall the prophets of tax strategy be honored in their own country.
I’ve been wanting to ask this question for a while...genuinely curious.
For the left-leaning folks, how do you rank your candidates? It is gender first, then race, then sexual identity? Does a black woman out rank a gay guy?
I choose my candidates the same way I assume most people choose them. Are you making some kind of allusion to the right's tired old "identity politics?" I go by whether a candidate reflects my values, and then sort through other factors--I suppose considering electibility, which I never used to take into account.
Williamsmith
2-12-19, 3:53pm
I’m Independent but for now....apparently white, male and obnoxious (in that order) suits me fine as long as the economy keeps chugging along, I keep my healthcare and my investments don’t vaporize.
Williamsmith
2-13-19, 11:51am
I’m going to list the most likely Democratic Presidential Nominees as of today in order of probability that they will become the nominee. And can anyone explain why any of them would appeal to a broad enough base to actually challenge Trump? Assume Trump retains his astounding Rasmussen popularity numbers.
Beto O'Rourke
Kamala Harris
Joe Biden (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Amy Klobuchar (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Tulsi Gabbard (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Kirsten Gillibrand (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Cory Booker (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Hillary Clinton
Oprah Winfrey (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Michelle Obama
Julian Castro
Tom Wolf
Andrew Cuomo (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Tom Steyer
Joe Kennedy III
By virtue of being "not trump" they automatically potentially have appeal to the 57% of the voters who recently were polled and responded definitely not trump. Any one of them has the potential to get 46% of the popular vote and secure the nomination.
I'm kind of slow, clearly.
In retrospect, Tradd's question seems to be what passes for humor among Republicans.
I'm kind of slow, clearly.
In retrospect, Tradd's question seems to be what passes for humor among Republicans.Cory Booker just announced that if he wins the nomination he'll look to women first for a running mate, so in answer to Tradd's question, Mr Booker chooses gender first.
Williamsmith
2-13-19, 1:45pm
By virtue of being "not trump" they automatically potentially have appeal to the 57% of the voters who recently were polled and responded definitely not trump. Any one of them has the potential to get 46% of the popular vote and secure the nomination.
I figure you are talking about the Marist Poll sponsored by NPR and PBS newshour? Do you think a poll sponsored by Fox News and the Drudge Report would reflect different numbers? NPR is simply creating its own news.
The poll was conducted right at the height height of the government partial shutdown when very strong emotions were being fed to the television consuming public.
According to Marist, they polled 873 registered voters. You would think an accurate poll would reflect approximately half as many Republicans as Democrats or independents leaning each direction. Not so here. 324 to 417 in favor of Democrats. Statistical significance is plus or minus almost 7%. Thats a 14% spread.
They polled a total of 1023 persons in a nation of over 300 million people.
I certainly hope Democrats take these polls as much of gospel as you seem to do. It will guarantee they perform just like they did last time.
Watch as they all flee from the Green New Deal as if it is the plague.
Williamsmith
2-13-19, 1:50pm
Perhaps someone can hazard an answer to this? Why is Hillary Clinton less qualified to be the nominee in 2020. After all, we are to assume we have a handle on the Russians now that Mueller has been on the job. With the Russian meddling taken care of she should easily hand Trump a humbling loss. And this time around, she can actually campaign and debate.
Watch as they all flee from the Green New Deal as if it is the plague.The first Green New Deal compliant cars have hit the showroom.
https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51771335_2598718450143339_435326134092038144_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=364ddbdd6ffeb31de53b54e224dd7d26&oe=5D28D0B9
I'm kind of slow, clearly.
In retrospect, Tradd's question seems to be what passes for humor among Republicans.
I have left leaning friends who rank candidates. Some by race first, others by gender, some by sexual orientation.
It wasn’t a joke. One gal said race trumps everything else. Someone else will only vote for women. Issues be damned.
Williamsmith
2-13-19, 2:10pm
Alan,
I don’t think we will be able to cut down trees with a chainsaw or mine stone with commercial equipment. Do you have anything that’s made out of recycled cardboard?
I’ve been wanting to ask this question for a while...genuinely curious.
For the left-leaning folks, how do you rank your candidates? It is gender first, then race, then sexual identity? Does a black woman out rank a gay guy?
None of these, I go for the issues...…….and I really like Joe Biden, always have, but wonder if he may be too old to run? Or is that a valid concern?
Williamsmith
2-13-19, 2:19pm
None of these, I go for the issues...…….and I really like Joe Biden, always have, but wonder if he may be too old to run? Or is that a valid concern?
Age is only a valid concern if you really think a person is just too old.
None of these, I go for the issues...…….and I really like Joe Biden, always have, but wonder if he may be too old to run? Or is that a valid concern?
I think it's valid--hasn't he run several times in the past?
I'm very pleased so far with the candidates we have. I have the same concerns about Warren and Sanders. It's time, I think for a whole new generation of progressives.
I suppose it’s fair to call a poll fake news. That seems to be in fashion these days. I appreciate your posts WS because they remind me that mine isnt the only bubble that exists.
At the end of the day i still find it hard to believe that trump will do as well as ge did in 2016. He’s not done anything to try to expand his base. And with only 46% of voters voting for him then he doesnt have room to lose any voters. If 2018’s results are to be believed it appears that he’s definitely lost a sizable chunk of them. There simply arent enough old or uneducated white dudes in the country for him to win the day in 2020.
Warren is 69; Biden is 76; Sanders is 77. Trump is 72.
For those who talk about 'too old', just what is your cut off? At what age do you think politicians should be put out to pasture?
If you feel that way, then obviously, don't vote for that person who is older than you think she or he should be, and the primary process will straighten it all out.
And I guess the corollary is, what do think is "too young" for the job? Is there such a thing if you believe that some people are too old to hold the job--what is the allowable range for you?
I’m going to list the most likely Democratic Presidential Nominees as of today in order of probability that they will become the nominee. And can anyone explain why any of them would appeal to a broad enough base to actually challenge Trump? Assume Trump retains his astounding Rasmussen popularity numbers.
Beto O'Rourke
Kamala Harris
Joe Biden (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Amy Klobuchar (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Tulsi Gabbard (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Kirsten Gillibrand (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Cory Booker (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Hillary Clinton
Oprah Winfrey (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Michelle Obama
Julian Castro
Tom Wolf
Andrew Cuomo (https://record.bettingpartners.com/_ydhaNj_zEu1kNWoNHzv2e2Nd7ZgqdRLk/76/)
Tom Steyer
Joe Kennedy III
If anyone on that list runs against Trump, I will
vote third party again. How do you make an intelligent choice between disaster and catastrophe?
Warren is 69; Biden is 76; Sanders is 77. Trump is 72.
For those who talk about 'too old', just what is your cut off? At what age do you think politicians should be put out to pasture?
If you feel that way, then obviously, don't vote for that person who is older than you think she or he should be, and the primary process will straighten it all out.
And I guess the corollary is, what do think is "too young" for the job? Is there such a thing if you believe that some people are too old to hold the job--what is the allowable range for you?
I think Reagan and Trump who governed in their dotage illustrate the concerns people have. I would vote for any of the Democrats mentioned if they were nominated, but I'd prefer a younger person, considering they would be looking at a potential 8-year run.
Williamsmith
2-13-19, 3:18pm
If anyone on that list runs against Trump, I will
vote third party again. How do you make an intelligent choice between disaster and catastrophe?
There are two people on that list I might be able to vote for.
Tulsi Gabbard.......if She would register Independent
Tom Wolf............because Pennsylvanians have put up with him long enough.
I think Reagan and Trump who governed in their dotage illustrate the concerns people have. I would vote for any of the Democrats mentioned if they were nominated, but I'd prefer a younger person, considering they would be looking at a potential 8-year run.
If any of those candidates served two terms, they'd be about RBG's age.
I was actually think of a ticket with Sanders at the top and someone like Beto or Gabbard (a Bernie protege) as veep.
With the sad fact that if he were to pass away (presumably the fear with someone of that age) there is someone young to take his place.
Maybe it would feel more balanced by age and be more palatable to voters?
If any of those candidates served two terms, they'd be about RBG's age.
I thought about her; she's a rare force. I wouldn't rule out anyone completely because of age, but I'd really like a new generation to take over. Maybe any combination of Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, O'Rourke...
rosarugosa
2-13-19, 7:57pm
In answer to Tradd's question, I don't select by race or gender or sexual orientation. I really love Bernie, and he's a straight old white guy. I do have some concerns about age, although I hate the idea of being ageist. I cannot help but looking at the mental decline of my mother and MIL beginning in their early eighties. I am more worried about a president with dementia that a president dying in office.
I look at issues and character. A candidate who will not take PAC or other special interest money is better than one who does.
I look at issues and character. A candidate who will not take PAC or other special interest money is better than one who does.
+1
I really like Klobuchar; I thought she did an outstanding job at the Kavanaugh hearing.
I really like Klobuchar; I thought she did an outstanding job at the Kavanaugh hearing.
Sharp, hard-working, and likable. She's definitely on my short list.
I agree with no PAC money being a plus.
I see former political outlier Bernie Sanders is officially in He almost seems quaintly conservative in the current field of contenders.
I see former political outlier Bernie Sanders is officially in He almost seems quaintly conservative in the current field of contenders.
Yes, I was just reading the NYT!! Yippee! I can get out my 2016 Bernie T-shirt!
2670
BTW, here's a little quiz (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/22/us/politics/what-is-democratic-socialism.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer): "Are You a Democratic Socialist"
I'm sure you don't need a quiz to answer that question for yourself, but it explains their platform.
Earlier in this thread the question came up about 'how old is too old'. I don't have an exact number but I do note that Bernie would, on Inauguration Day, be almost exactly at the age of average life expectancy in the US. That, for me, is too old. While he seems to be in good health and could also emeliorate concern by picking a good VP I'm inclined to vote for someone else, given the variety of people running.
catherine
2-19-19, 10:49am
Actually, jp, that is a serious consideration, and while I am a huge Bernie fan, I agree with what Jane said about the need for new blood. He has inspired his own proteges at this point, and maybe they're the ones better suited to carry the banner. I just feel bad that Bernie is like Moses, leading people to the Progressive Promised Land but unable to cross over himself. He probably has missed his window.
I'll continue to support Bernie and see what happens.
ApatheticNoMore
2-19-19, 12:21pm
Who are the proteges? Well Elizabeth Warren has her own base, which is not due to Bernie. Tulsi maybe?
I don't agree we need new blood, especially as the "new blood" is half the time older than me. Bernie is better than that as he harks back to a more idealistic time, than trust me any Gen Xer does, we're not generally that idealistic a lot, especially as the current crop in politics grew up with tons of money in politics (but if they refuse it, I will note it). Millenials might be different, but they are mostly too young to run (the oldest millenails being like 36 or 37 or something).
I would agree that gen x'ers are not likely to be idealistic. I mean, geez, I first became politically aware during Reagan. If that won't kill off one's idealism nothing will.
I would agree that gen x'ers are not likely to be idealistic. I mean, geez, I first became politically aware during Reagan. If that won't kill off one's idealism nothing will.
I miss Reagan. I miss the way he just laughed off the insults of the ankle-biters of the time. They would call him stupid even as he wiped the floor with them. No angry tweets in response to some SNL skit. Just a cheery “There you go again”. We need more of that in our contemporary politics.
catherine
2-19-19, 12:54pm
Reagan's cheerful spirit and optimism was refreshing, to be sure. I just really didn't like his politics, but nobody's perfect.
Just a cheery “There you go again”. We need more of that in our contemporary politics.
Don't worry. It still exists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBeuzWWKrew
BTW, here's a little quiz (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/22/us/politics/what-is-democratic-socialism.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer): "Are You a Democratic Socialist"
I'm sure you don't need a quiz to answer that question for yourself, but it explains their platform.
I thought it interesting to see that, according to the quiz, the Democratic Socialists are really big on government regulation of industry and very strong labor unions, that is until they assume control of the means of production, then not so much. I'd never considered that a workers paradise doesn't require oversight, it seems a little Animal Farmish.
I thought it interesting to see that, according to the quiz, the Democratic Socialists are really big on government regulation of industry and very strong labor unions, that is until they assume control of the means of production, then not so much. I'd never considered that a workers paradise doesn't require oversight.
How did you arrive at that? The quiz I took had several discreet questions, the correct answers to which didn't change depending on how one answered any of the other questions. And the quiz stated that democratic socialists prefer worker ownership, strong government regulations, and strong unions. There wasn't any mention of differing opinions for the later two depending on who owned the corporations.
Teacher Terry
2-19-19, 1:56pm
Totally agree Jp.
How did you arrive at that? Just paying attention to the qualifiers.
They believe that as long as private corporations exist....the government should regulate them in order to, in their view, mitigate the harms of capitalism and push companies to act in the best interests of workers and society as a whole.
Ultimately, democratic socialists want workers to control the means of production. In the meantime, they see unions as a way to give workers more power under capitalism.
Would they not still be private corporations if the employees owned them?
And if the employees owned them would they need to outsource regulation of them to the government (who they would presumably hope would regulate them in the same way they would want to regulate themselves)?
Would they not still be private corporations if the employees owned them?
And if the employees owned them would they need to outsource regulation of them to the government (who they would presumably hope would regulate them in the same way they would want to regulate themselves)?
Is a cooperative and a corporation the same thing? From the response to question #1:
You disagree with democratic socialists. They believe that an economy based on private profit — in other words, capitalism — is inherently exploitative. This is a key difference between democratic socialism and mainstream progressivism, including European-style social democracy.
Democratic socialists see social democracies “as an improvement over the present situation in the United States,” said Maria Svart, the national director of the D.S.A., but “it’s really still society and the economy functioning on terms that are set by the capitalist class. Our ultimate goal is for working people to run our society and run our workplaces and our economies.”They don’t want Soviet-style state control of the economy. While they believe a small number of industries would be best administered by the government, they oppose authoritarianism and support a mostly decentralized economy controlled by workers and consumers, such as through cooperatives.
From this, I take it that Democratic Socialists are very much in favor of government regulation until they take over and their opposition to authoritarianism kicks in.
Is a cooperative and a corporation the same thing? From the response to question #1:
From this, I take it that Democratic Socialists are very much in favor of government regulation until they take over and their opposition to authoritarianism kicks in.
It’s been said that the difference between communism and socialism is that communism begins with a gun in your face while socialism ends with a gun in your face.
I suspect we will hear the word socialism as a demonizing term for the democratic candidates, as I think most of the top contenders so far support some form of medicare for all and will probably propose higher taxes for the wealthy. In reality we already have elements of socialism in our system with things like social security, medicare, public transportation, public education, public parks, and so on. It comes down to a matter of degree.
Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. FDR's new deal and LBJ's great society gave us socialistic systems that we've come to hold fairly dear. Ike's GI bill and Nixon's EPA and OSHA. Adding new items to the list doesn't all of a sudden make us socialistic and subtracting doesn't automatically make us capitalistic. We are well on the road to being a blend of the two. It's the fear mongering that we will become a failed Euro nation or lagging third world country, or heaven forbid something like the Soviet Union.
The rampant GOP spending that has gone hand in hand with tax cuts may one day put us in a position where we are paying more in interest than the cost of many of our social welfare programs is what concerns me more.
... or heaven forbid something like the Soviet Union.
Heaven indeed forbid that we do! A particularly brutal and stupid vehicle for socialism. Only an idiot or an academic would be foolish enough to wish that for his country.
I spent seven not particularly enjoyable years of military service to help keep that sordid form of barbarism at bay. I count that as time well spent.
Heaven indeed forbid that we do! A particularly brutal and stupid vehicle for socialism. Only an idiot or an academic would be foolish enough to wish that for his country.
I spent seven not particularly enjoyable years of military service to help keep that sordid form of barbarism at bay. I count that as time well spent.
And we probably know which candidate Russia has supported.
If people woke up and came to play, we could craft some form of American socialism to rival Europe--a real government of the people, to replace this plutocratic kakocracy we have now. I'm a lot more concerned by runaway capitalism than I am by European-style socialism.
And we probably know which candidate Russia has supported.
That certainly seems to figure in a lot of people’s fantasies, and I would much prefer a President Pence, but I would suspect if there was a true bombshell there it would have been leaked by now.
And nothing about the current allegations detracts from my gratitude to God and a couple of generations of cold warriors that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been relegated to the ash heap of history.
gimmethesimplelife
2-20-19, 10:29am
Breaking into this thread late as I've tried to take a little breather regarding politics - I've been riled up over what's going down at the border plus over the Emergency Declaration, plus the drop in sales tax revenue in Nogales, Arizona, due to policies of the Trump Administration. So I've bypassed this thread until now.
All I've got to say is that so far I am liking three candidates in no particular order as of yet: Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro, and Elizabeth Warren. Interestingly enough, none of whom are Conservatives. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
2-20-19, 10:30am
If people woke up and came to play, we could craft some form of American socialism to rival Europe--a real government of the people, to replace this plutocratic kakocracy we have now. I'm a lot more concerned by runaway capitalism than I am by European-style socialism.Your last sentence, Jane? I could not agree with you more. I find runaway capitalism very scary myself, too. Rob
Breaking into this thread late as I've tried to take a little breather regarding politics - I've been riled up over what's going down at the border plus over the Emergency Declaration, plus the drop in sales tax revenue in Nogales, Arizona, due to policies of the Trump Administration. So I've bypassed this thread until now.
All I've got to say is that so far I am liking three candidates in no particular order as of yet: Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro, and Elizabeth Warren. Interestingly enough, none of whom are Conservatives. Rob
I find it passing strange that people like Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar represent the far right of the field. Would Bill Clinton even be considered within the realm of possibility today?
Has the country at large shifted to the left as abruptly as the Democrats? Or are the chattering classes just believing their own propaganda?
That certainly seems to figure in a lot of people’s fantasies, and I would much prefer a President Pence, but I would suspect if there was a true bombshell there it would have been leaked by now.
And nothing about the current allegations detracts from my gratitude to God and a couple of generations of cold warriors that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been relegated to the ash heap of history.
You're kidding, right? The Evil Empire is alive and well under a new name. Putin has his evil fingers in everything from Brexit to American elections. And IMO Pence is about as viable a candidate as Mr. Ed.
You're kidding, right? The Evil Empire is alive and well under a new name. Putin has his evil fingers in everything from Brexit to American elections. And IMO Pence is about as viable a candidate as Mr. Ed.
The Russian Federation is a mere shadow of its former imperial self. Just ask the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians. Putin has to content himself with bullying a few formal vassal states and the sort of election mischief many countries attempt. If Europe (with a few noble exceptions) ever gets around to displaying a bit more backbone, Russia would be even less influential.
I think the primary threat of the 21st century is China.
ApatheticNoMore
2-20-19, 12:23pm
Ultimately, democratic socialists want workers to control the means of production. In the meantime, they see unions as a way to give workers more power under capitalism.
All that is saying is that every firm was a worker co-op with all decisions reached by the workers of the firm, unions wouldn't be necessary. It is all rather utopian, since that is very far from the case (so hence unions).
If the question is whether or not democratic socialists in general support public sector unions? The answer is: yes, they support them.
The kind of damage Putin is doing doesn't take a lot of resources. Our elections are eminently hackable and social media bots can change public opinion. And then there is our power grid :0!...Recommended reading: Malcolm Nance's The Plot to Hack America.
And now, Putin--with Trump's eager help--is angling to sell nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia, which has no need of energy. Can nuclear weapons be far behind?
That certainly seems to figure in a lot of people’s fantasies, and I would much prefer a President Pence, but I would suspect if there was a true bombshell there it would have been leaked by now.
And nothing about the current allegations detracts from my gratitude to God and a couple of generations of cold warriors that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been relegated to the ash heap of history.
Are we to think then that Russia did not interfere with the last elections in favor of Trump? Probably a well worn out topic, but just saying.
Are we to think then that Russia did not interfere with the last elections in favor of Trump? Probably a well worn out topic, but just saying.
I guess that's considered irrelevant among conservatives, since it broke their way. How many indictments and convictions have resulted from such shenanigans now? I guess Russian bots are already targeting Democratic candidates.
Are we to think then that Russia did not interfere with the last elections in favor of Trump? Probably a well worn out topic, but just saying.
I would predicate that conclusion on the available evidence. Despite some of Trump’s circle getting squeezed on unrelated or process crimes the Special Prosecutor has not yet produced anything that strikes me as conclusive.
Did Russia try to influence the election by spreading lies? I don’t doubt that they, and many other parties did. Is that collusion? I don’t know if it is, absent proof. I don’t believe, for instance, that David Duke’s endorsement of Tulsi Gabbard means she colluded with the KKK.
Have any of you listened to Pete Buttigieg's interviews? I ignored them for awhile, since he was "just" the mayor of South Bend, IN. He is openly gay, and has been mayor for 8 years. He came out during his term, and still voted in again.
This guy sounds really good. He's only something like 37, but sounds VERY reasonable.
but sounds VERY reasonable.
That is probably a liability in the present climate.
Actually, jp, that is a serious consideration, and while I am a huge Bernie fan, I agree with what Jane said about the need for new blood. He has inspired his own proteges at this point, and maybe they're the ones better suited to carry the banner. I just feel bad that Bernie is like Moses, leading people to the Progressive Promised Land but unable to cross over himself. He probably has missed his window.
I'll continue to support Bernie and see what happens.
To this point I made earlier, here's a news piece that echoes it well (BTW, the news reporter is my cousin)
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/Longtime-Friend-and-Supporter-Incredibly-Sad-Bernie-Sanders-Is-Running-for-President-506071451.html?fbclid=IwAR3-T0mvYTDSVbBjmi_UuGegQKE24ayIC-QxA8C0aopcVrCGm6sSgdqEVbw
I think since Trump, our next biggest hope is someone closer to the middle. The nation is so divided, and the last thing we need is someone who is so polarizing, like Warren and Sanders. I mean they might not try to be, but their fervor will be viewed as such. The more left or right the nation becomes, the stronger the pull in the opposing direction becomes. We need some middle-ground, especially after the divide that Trump has caused/encouraged.
Oh definitely. We've got a racist dog-whistling con artist Russian asset oligarch boot-licking childish insult-throwing, dictator-worshiping, NATO/UN basher, ignorant, illiterate, trampler of the Constitution. By all means let's just elect someone slightly to the left of that. Like Romney! There's the ticket!
F that.
Oh definitely. We've got a racist dog-whistling con artist Russian asset oligarch boot-licking childish insult-throwing, dictator-worshiping, NATO/UN basher, ignorant, illiterate, trampler of the Constitution. By all means let's just elect someone slightly to the left of that. Like Romney! There's the ticket!
F that.
That is exactly what the Democrats should do. Purge the fanatical moderates! The people yearn for revolution!
I do yearn for a revolution, preferably bloodless.
As Jim Hightower says "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
I do yearn for a revolution, preferably bloodless.
As Jim Hightower says "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
Yes, and that electoral philosophy got him no further than the Texas Department of Agriculture.
I admire a commitment to ideological purity. I think George McGovern was a very admirable guy.
I may have voted for McGovern... :|(
He lost me when I read about the McGovern Commission on Nutrition, which issued the original dietary guidelines with the advice of Ancel Keys and other scoundrels. A shining example of government overreach that kicked off decades of misinformation and professional meddling.
Just think of the glorious opportunity for government overreach the Green New Dealers will have if they get a mandate to retool the economy.
I find it passing strange that people like Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar represent the far right of the field. Would Bill Clinton even be considered within the realm of possibility today?
Has the country at large shifted to the left as abruptly as the Democrats? Or are the chattering classes just believing their own propaganda?
Since Clinton we have had both generational and demographic change. That is why the Defense of Marriage Act he signed is no longer in effect.
Who would have believed ten years ago we would have universal same sex marriage and widespread legalized cannabis? Single payer health care has a larger constituency than either--reports say 70-78%.
iris lilies
2-20-19, 9:21pm
Who would have believed ten years ago we would have universal same sex marriage and widespread legalized cannabis? Single payer health care has a larger constituency than either--reports say 70-78%.
Isn’t it grand? Free everything for everyone!
rosarugosa
2-21-19, 7:07am
"Free" is a pet peeve for me. "Publicly funded" is more accurate.
"Free stuff" is a characterization meant to be insulting. The stuff I pay taxes for is not free, and I would a thousand times rather spend my tax dollars on health care and infrastructure, for example, than on endless stupid wars and unnecessary payoffs to big business and billionaires.
Cannabis generates lots of revenue.
It doesn't cost the government any more money to subsidize gay marriage than straight.
Universal health care would be much cheaper and more efficient than what we have now, if it were managed as well as, say, Social Security. We pay twice as much for substandard care as any other first-world country.
"Free stuff" is a characterization meant to be insulting. I agree. I've never understood why so many politicians promise it to us and why so many of their supporters expect it.
"Free" is a pet peeve for me. "Publicly funded" is more accurate.
I’m guessing that over the next few years the question “How do you intend to pay for that?” will generate a mighty torrent of creative wordsmithery, sublime spin and desperate distraction among progressive policy promoters.
“It’s an investment that will pay for itself.”
“We’ll make the rich pay. It won’t cost you a thing,”
“Denmark!”
“We owe the money to ourselves.”
“Those other guys borrow money too.”
“We’re trying to save humanity here! There’s no time to argue!”
catherine
2-21-19, 10:47am
I’m guessing that over the next few years the question “How do you intend to pay for that?” will generate a mighty torrent of creative wordsmithery, sublime spin and desperate distraction among progressive policy promoters.
“It’s an investment that will pay for itself.”
“We’ll make the rich pay. It won’t cost you a thing,”
“Denmark!”
“We owe the money to ourselves.”
“Those other guys borrow money too.”
“We’re trying to save humanity here! There’s no time to argue!”
Upping the marginal tax rate on the highest earners in the country has already been proposed. And that strategy has been employed by many administrations in the past to solve problems. Why should our 21st century problems require different solutions?
Upping the marginal tax rate on the highest earners in the country has already been proposed. And that strategy has been employed by many administrations in the past to solve problems. Why should our 21st century problems require different solutions?
Federal taxes have been effectively gutted since Reagan; we need to get back to levels we can work with.
Upping the marginal tax rate on the highest earners in the country has already been proposed. And that strategy has been employed by many administrations in the past to solve problems. Why should our 21st century problems require different solutions?
Upping the marginal income tax rates and finding a way around the Constitution to implement a federal wealth tax will not begin to raise all the additional trillions in proposed new spending. Neither will reducing the military to impotence or eliminating your least favorite law enforcement agencies.
If the Democrats want to promise eliminating fossil fuels and rehabbing everything with a roof in ten years while simultaneously providing a massive menu of new benefits, they should be honest about the cost involved to average Americans, not just the hated 1%.
So I guess we didn't have an extra two billion to gift to the oligarchs, eh? Let's reverse that blunder at the earliest opportunity.
If the Democrats want to promise eliminating fossil fuels and rehabbing everything with a roof in ten years while simultaneously providing a massive menu of new benefits, they should be honest about the cost involved to average Americans, not just the hated 1%.I heard a pundit recently suggest that we would need to eliminate progressive taxation and credits and enforce a mandatory rate of approximately 50% on every worker, regardless of income.
That seems about right to me. If you were to add a wealth tax on top of that, it would have the added benefit of eliminating income disparity within just a few years which seems to make it a political no-brainer.
So I guess we didn't have an extra two billion to gift to the oligarchs, eh? Let's reverse that blunder at the earliest opportunity.You know we talk about the pros and cons of socialism a lot and I think your post outlines my biggest problem with it. Your line of thought assumes that those two billion didn't belong to the oligarchs to start with, that all income belongs to the commons and we desperately need a just arbiter to dole it out fairly. That's such a crock.
So I guess we didn't have an extra two billion to gift to the oligarchs, eh? Let's reverse that blunder at the earliest opportunity.
I’m fine with that. But it won’t be enough to fund Utopia or replace the internal combustion engine with perpetual motion machines in the near future. You could dispossess every billionaire in the country and confiscate Bernie’s lake house, and it wouldn’t be enough.
What is being proposed by the current crop of contenders is almost certainly economically, socially and technically impossible. Emancipatory arithmetic and class envy are effective distraction tactics, but the gulf between the promises and the capability to deliver is just (I hope) too wide to escape the notice of even our distracted public.
I’m fine with that. But it won’t be enough to fund Utopia or replace the internal combustion engine with perpetual motion machines in the near future. You could dispossess every billionaire in the country and confiscate Bernie’s lake house, and it wouldn’t be enough.
What is being proposed by the current crop of contenders is almost certainly economically, socially and technically impossible. Emancipatory arithmetic and class envy are effective distraction tactics, but the gulf between the promises and the capability to deliver is just (I hope) too wide to escape the notice of even our distracted public.
We'll be able to iron out the details before long, I hope. Maybe we should study how other countries green up; I suspect many approaches are revenue-neutral.
You know we talk about the pros and cons of socialism a lot and I think your post outlines my biggest problem with it. Your line of thought assumes that those two billion didn't belong to the oligarchs to start with, that all income belongs to the commons and we desperately need a just arbiter to dole it out fairly. That's such a crock.
And eventually you still “run out of other people’s money”.
We'll be able to iron out the details before long, I hope. Maybe we should study how other countries green up; I suspect many approaches are revenue-neutral.
Revenue neutral just means you raise the same amount of revenue while shifting the burden between different parties. That doesn’t solve the problem of raising federal spending by a multiple or two.
Revenue neutral just means you raise the same amount of revenue while shifting the burden between different parties. That doesn’t solve the problem of raising federal spending by a multiple or two.
Instead of wailing that it can't be done, let's find a way--like we found a way to develop a national highway system or go to the moon. It's not like we're a third-rate country full of dimwits incapable of developing solutions. Or are we?
Instead of wailing that it can't be done, let's find a way--like we found a way to develop a national highway system or go to the moon. It's not like we're a third-rate country full of dimwits incapable of developing solutions. Or are we?
Even the most grandiose plans require some kind of actual plan. They also require some level of confidence in the planners and a consensus that the plan is worth attempting. I don’t think even the Moon Shot had as many black box assumptions as the Green New Deal.
Of course we will need a plan; that goes without saying, but we're not likely to get a plan with pro-fossil fuel/Koch brothers dependent Republicans in control of the Senate.
Of course we will need a plan; that goes without saying, but we're not likely to get a plan with pro-fossil fuel/Koch brothers dependent Republicans in control of the Senate.
Assuming Trump remains so unpopular that a Democrat arguing for removing voters from their cars and slaughtering all those flatulent cows can beat him, the Senate could well be the last bastion of liberty against the left’s mission to “mobilize” society.
Nobody's talking about taking cars away, unless you think encouraging electric cars and mass transit is "removing voters from their cars." No one but the vegans wants to do away with meat-eating either, unless you consider pasturing ruminants (see Allan Savory) and an end to CAFO the same as "slaughtering flatulent cows." Honestly, if it weren't for silly strawmen, you righties would be left with nothing at all to say.
Nobody's talking about taking cars away, unless you think encouraging electric cars and mass transit is "removing voters from their cars." No one but the vegans wants to do away with meat-eating either, unless you consider pasturing ruminants (see Allan Savory) and an end to CAFO the same as "slaughtering flatulent cows." Honestly, if it weren't for silly strawmen, you righties would be left with nothing at all to say.
We persist.
What they will do is create a regulatory regime that will over time make things like private cars even of the oversized golf cart variety and cheeseburgers prohitively expensive. Which of course won’t much matter unless they get China on board with the same thing.
If the voters sign off on this cynical stew of threat and promise, they will deserve what results.
....pasturing ruminants (see Allan Savory)...
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change
If the voters sign off on this cynical stew of threat and promise, they will deserve what results.
They aren't creating a threat--they are identifying it, and proposing a mission statement.
Just last week I watched a fantastic video interview with David Suzuki. He said that a seminal moment in his life was when America saw that the Russians were doing these amazing things in space. We weren't even at the plate yet. So Kennedy said that we would have a man on the moon in 10 years. Which we did! In less than 10 years! We had no idea how to do it, but we did it--because we were committed.
The Green New Dealers aren't just playing an Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better game with another country. They are saying "Houston, we have a problem"--like it or not, it is in our best interests and the best interests of our children to take the world's scientists at their word, and go back to a renewed commitment to doing what we can to avert climate disaster. Like the NASA neophytes back in the early 60s with the backing by the country's leadership and citizens, we will get there, but not unless we start somewhere.
What’s being put forward is not a plan to solve one big ecological problem. It’s a plan to use a big ecological problem as cover to turn over a large portion of the economy to effective government control, set up mechanisms for redistributing wealth, enact a comprehensive new welfare state and some frothy language about social justice.
They want to “mobilize” Americans and their assets, marching as to war. Will the voters be willing to be so conscripted for the Left’s agenda, much of which has little to do with climate change?
What’s being put forward is not a plan to solve one big ecological problem. It’s a plan to use a big ecological problem as cover to turn over a large portion of the economy to effective government control, set up mechanisms for redistributing wealth, enact a comprehensive new welfare state and some frothy language about social justice.
Exactly!
What’s being put forward is not a plan to solve one big ecological problem. It’s a plan to use a big ecological problem as cover to turn over a large portion of the economy to effective government control, set up mechanisms for redistributing wealth, enact a comprehensive new welfare state and some frothy language about social justice.
They want to “mobilize” Americans and their assets, marching as to war. Will the voters be willing to be so conscripted for the Left’s agenda, much of which has little to do with climate change?
You think we can solve a big ecological problem without a major change to our economy? Considering how significant are fossil fuels to the economy currently? Please tell me how you envision solving the ecological problem any other way. I'd look for a republican alternative, but the republican alternative seems to be appointing fossil fuel executives to posts like head of the Environmental Destruction Agency and pretend like we don't have a problem.
What’s being put forward is not a plan to solve one big ecological problem. It’s a plan to use a big ecological problem as cover to turn over a large portion of the economy to effective government control, set up mechanisms for redistributing wealth, enact a comprehensive new welfare state and some frothy language about social justice.
They want to “mobilize” Americans and their assets, marching as to war. Will the voters be willing to be so conscripted for the Left’s agenda, much of which has little to do with climate change?
I'm not sure how climate change is going to be helped in any reasonable timeline and degree without government control or incentives.
I have wondered if the New Green Deal is taking a lesson from 45's deal making plan, where you ask for the extreme and expect compromise.
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change
We can start by expanding rangeland and eliminating CAFOs while we natter about the details.
You think we can solve a big ecological problem without a major change to our economy? Considering how significant are fossil fuels to the economy currently? Please tell me how you envision solving the ecological problem any other way. I'd look for a republican alternative, but the republican alternative seems to be appointing fossil fuel executives to posts like head of the Environmental Destruction Agency and pretend like we don't have a problem.
Republicans never met an environmental disaster they couldn't exacerbate or exploit. It wasn't always this way--conservatives used to be for conservation and preservation of resources; now they want to wring every last drop of oil and crumb of coal out of the earth, because it's all about money, money, money, and the people be damned. Look at Flint's water issues--politically motivated, and still not solved. Of course governments need to be involved in large-scale threats to their country's well-being; do you have a better solution? I read yesterday that our military budget is bigger than the next ten countries combined; five times bigger than China's with its massive population. That gives you an idea of our collective values.
As Dwight D Eisenhower famously said "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." History has proved him right.
From what I’ve read over the last several years, there’s not much we can do now to turn around climate change. The cycle has started and it’s pretty much just a matter of degree. Also from all the reading I’ve done, decisions made by individuals are just a drop in the ocean in this fight. It’s large scale societal systems that need to be changed.
So I still do what I can but I recognize that it probably doesn’t make any difference.
Republicans never met an environmental disaster they couldn't exacerbate or exploit. It wasn't always this way--conservatives used to be for conservation and preservation of resources; now they want to wring every last drop of oil and crumb of coal out of the earth, because it's all about money, money, money, and the people be damned. Look at Flint's water issues--politically motivated, and still not solved. Of course governments need to be involved in large-scale threats to their country's well-being; do you have a better solution? I read yesterday that our military budget is bigger than the next ten countries combined; five times bigger than China's with its massive population. That gives you an idea of our collective values.
As Dwight D Eisenhower famously said "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." History has proved him right.
I would be much less skeptical with a climate crusade that wasn’t larded with a social agenda.
I would be much more impressed with a military spending comparison with China if they couldn’t conscript personnel for so little.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.