Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It is really stupid that we have common core, and that the government doesn't discern between smart and dumb kids. They should get separate teaching so they reach their potential. I didn't talk about the intelligence of the people in my post, so I don't know why you brought it up.
I'm taking your argument and putting it in a slightly different environment so you can see how ridiculous it is. You don't think society should pay fora kid to be able to take a degree that you see as a waste. So why would we educate a child who isn't going to do well? Isn't that also a waste of resources?
You see, I don't follow. The right to life is... well, a right. You have no right to an education. Education is an investment by the state so that you can grow up and pay taxes. We should stop paying for those dumb majors that don't result in people getting productive jobs. Sure, education is important. But it is an investment and should be managed as such.
Your argument is exactly why we need to, as a society, make sure that these things are a right. If you treat things as an investment then you can cut them when they aren't profitable. If a kid has a learning disability and isn't likely to pay much taxes, then the correct fiscal decision would be to deny him an education. But because education is a right, if any politician tried that, they would thrown out of office. We need to establish that college education is a right too.
You're not addressing what I am saying. Ending torture of someone helps them. Do you acknowledge that a large influx of people with marketing degrees will drive down the salaries of people who already had marketing degrees? Yes or no.
No, not really. They wouldn't have the job experience that someone who is already working in the industry would have. But again, you are arguing that helping children is bad and we shouldn't do it. Do you really not see how shitty that sounds?
You would have a lot of people getting unnecessary graduate degrees. That will drive costs way up. They might tag on some extra minors. When you aren't paying for it, why care what the costs are? And I don't know, your party offers free government housing and SNAP, so I doubt they would need to worry about all of that. And you forget, I am fighting to eliminate debt. I am just the only one who still would like to apply personal responsibility.
But are you actually fighting for that? The republican party hasn't had a new idea for how to fix issues for decades. They have no interest in reforming the system to help students. I seriously doubt your idea would work, but I also seriously doubt it would get any support from republicans.
Question: how do you plan on keeping people from making poor decisions for majors? My plan has clear parameters to solve that issue.
You assume that we need to do that at all. why? Your plan is also full of holes that would make it almost impossible to implement and would make it very easily abused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Supply-side theory is all about privatization, deregulation, tax cuts, and competition. An increase of supply will decrease prices, which accomplishes the same thing as demand side: it allows consumers to buy it.
Except that it doesn't do that. You make as many plasma screen tvs as you want. If people are struggling to pay their rent and afford food, then it doesn't really matter how cheap you make them. Your consumer base simply can't afford them.
However, the difference is that it creates jobs, rather than destroying them.
you have this backwards. If workers are well paid, then they have income they can use to buy things. Maybe they want that plasma tv now. That means that a supplier now has a market and can earn a profit. If the market is there, a supplier to move in to meet the demand. Having a well paid work force doesn't destroy jobs. It is the source of jobs.
Instead of the government taking companies out of the market with excessive taxation and regulatory compliance, they will only go out of business if competing firms push them out. That is how you get better products and prices.
No one in america is advocating for "taking companies out of the maket". They are advocating for them actually contributing to the society they are profiting off of and meeting basic requirements to make sure they are treating people with respect that should be due to any american. People who advocate for removing regulations and corporate tax rates are advocating for corporations and the rich to have more rights than american citizens. It isn't right morally, but it is also terrible policy. It creates an environment where corporations will hurt anyone and everyone they want to in order to maximize their profits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Bernie is struggling beating Pete in Iowa
This topic was about bloomberg. Why are you trying to make it about bernie and pete?
You are living in a bubble if you think "centrist liberal" politics doesn't win elections. Hillary beat Bernie. Bernie is losing to Pete in Iowa and is barely beating Biden.
Who exactly is bloomberg's base?
Is it black or hispanic people? He is a strong supporter of stop and frisk which is a wildly racist policy. So not likely.
Is it working class? Most working class people don't even know who Bloomberg is. His name recognition is mostly in New York or people who read his financial news publications, so not the working class. He doesn't really advocate for any policies that would help the working class either.
Is it progressives? 100%, no. He is not the most progressive on pretty much any issue. And he is centrist/right wing on some as well.
His base is upper middle class white people. Those are the people who will like his liberal social policies and his conservative fiscal policy.
Bernie and Biden have a fairly diverse base. He isn't taking any support from Bernie. He might be able to take some from biden. But since alot of his base comes from the working class and black people, not alot.
Warren and Butigeg also appeal to upper middle class white people. So there is the possibility he could be a threat to butigeg. He might be able to take a few points from warren. But warren also has a fairly large progressive base as well.
Ultimately, the people he could possibly appeal to is like 15-20% of the vote tops. And he would need to take them from people who have been in the race alot longer. I'd say he is likely to become another one of those candidates struggling to break 5%. He may end up like Steyer (the other billionaire) struggling to crack 3%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Definitely agree. Trickle down economics is a shell game played by the rich. If you just keep giving them money then of course eventually you will get a prize. right?Never defend "Trickle Down Economics". It is a charged term, and you will lose every time.
What we actually believe is supply side economics. It is the idea that money is better kept in the hands of entrepreneurs than being redistributed to consumers.
This is also bad economics. It doesn't matter how much supply you create. If people cannot afford to buy the product, then supplying it is pointless. You drive growth when you create demand. If consumers have money then they will want to buy. That creates the opportunity that entrepreneurs need. This is the main reason you start to see economic slow downs after fiscally conservative governments take over. The social spending gets cuts. Demand for goods and services contracts. So the rich start getting less returns on their investments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Whether or not I should have to pay for something should be based on if it is an investment for me, the taxpayer. If that person will pay back more in taxes than I put in, then I could support it. However, the government doesn't discern between majors in college.
The government doesn't discern between smart 8 year olds and dumb ones. Should we charge the dumb kids because they aren't learning to read fast enough?
Ok, but there is a clear distinction between police/firemen and college. You can opt out of taking college. You can't opt out of police saving you. One is a choice. Unless, you are opting to get mugged somehow, I don't see how this applies.
This applies because they should both be a public service that society provides to improve society. We need police to maintain law and order. We need an educated society in general, and an educated work force to drive the economy. Both are critically important to our society. There is no reason we should charge a teenager trying to get an education, but not charge someone for police or fire services.
No, you are punishing people who were responsible. You are going to drive their wages down by devaluing their degree. Will you pay them back for putting themselves through college?
Again, why is that relevant. If you found out your local police force was torturing suspects, would you want them to stop torturing people or would you argue that if they stop torturing people it wouldn't be fair to the people who have already been tortured? The current system is a mess. We need to fix it as quickly as possible.
ou need to understand the inherent inefficiency of government. When you don't charge people based on their actions, they won't act responsibly. If you made all food free, would people eat more than they should? Yes. So, don't make all food free.
Do you really think that people are going to go to college over and over again? They would still not be earning any money while in college. They would still need to be able to eat and pay rent presumably. There is still a benefit to getting your degree and getting a job. You don't need to saddle them with debilitating debt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Having "a fence that people can get over or through in a matter of minutes" is better than no fence.
No it isn't. If the nearest border patrol is an hour or 2 away. 5 minutes climbing the fence makes no difference. But it does cost 10's of billions of dollars.
They are starting to give certain voting rights to illegal aliens to allow them to vote in certain areas for certain
That is for a school board. It is not a state of federal election. It is irrelevant to the discussion we are having.
They're even putting illegal aliens in positions of power.
So they will provide a vital service to the community and you don't even want to let them have citizenship.
You're right. We can help them both, by having those immigrants come here legally instead of illegally, and also by helping the homeless people get into homes and get jobs.
I totally agree with you on this point. The problem is that republicans have no interest in letting them come in legally. So if there is no legal way to enter and they need to flee their homeland, you are forcing them to be criminals or die. If you honestly believe in this kind of reform you should vote democrat.
Just because it's hard to come here legally doesn't mean it's broken. The country is being flooded with more people than it can handle, which is why it is difficult and takes long to process asylum applications in the first place.
What does this even mean? Unemployment rates are super low. America could handle 10 times the number of immigrants they take in now without much issue.
I'm sure they don't want to go through the trouble of leaving their country and investing elsewhere, but people will do that if they have to, are able to, and feel that they have no other choice.
They could save millions in taxes if they moved a matter of a few miles. But they choose not to. And you think they will move thousands of miles? It's not going to happen.
A lot of societies like Venezuela have faced economic ruin because they did not do exactly what I am suggesting.
Venezuela's situation is complicated. Much more so than you seem to think. But i don't imagine I could explain it to you.
Trickle Down Economics does not "destroy the middle class" like you say it does. Trickle Down Economics is meant to help rich, so they can, in turn, help the middle class, so they can, in turn, help the poor.
It's a bit like saying, you hand me your wallet, and maybe, at some point, I will hand a little bit of that money to someone else. And maybe, at some point, that person will hand a little bit of that money to someone else. It is just stupid on the face of it. You are just getting mugged.The rich do not help the middle class with their money. They are just robbing the country.
If it does destroy them, why hasn't it done so already?
It has been doing so for years. The level of income inequality has reached ridiculous levels. Do you really think that socialist policies like medicare for all would be super popular if the current economy was working well and everyone was succeeding? No, socialism is on the rise because for a large percentage of the american people, the economy isn't working.
Think about it this way: Say I'm rich, and you are middle class. With my wealth, I can increase your wage, hire more employees, and use my wealth to invest back into the business.
I understand the theory of trickle down economics. The problem is that this is not how it works. What really happens is that the rich take their wealth, and spend it on lobbyists to get even more concession so they can get more wealth. That money never leaves their hands. They never pay the higher wages.
It's risky, i'll admit, but it can also work in our favor.
Theoretically it could. In practice it doesn't.
No plan is perfect, and you are right about the risks and potential downsides of Trickle Down Economics, but so far, it's working out just fine.
That's just it though. Trickle down economics doesn't work. Like at all. It helps the rich get richer. That is it. More and more wealth accumulates at the top until the system collapses. We have gotten the massive inequality, we haven't hit the collapse yet. And hopefully a real progressive president will be elected and we wont need to reach it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I believe that the costs should be attributed to the people going to college.
So we should charge all small children for going to primary school? We should charge every person a police office saves?We should charge a person if the fire department saves their house?
As a society we offer services to people. We pay for those services through taxes instead of at the point the service is used. That is one of the main purposes of the government. Providing a free college education is no different that providing a free primary school education. People need them, we should make sure everyone has the ability to get one regardless of their finances.
should people who don't go to college pay for people that did?
Should the people who don't get mugged pay for police? Should people whose houses don't catch fire pay for firefighters? I would answer the same for all of them. We as a society should make sure these services are paid for for everyone. It doesn't matter if a particular individual ends up using the service. As a society we are better off if everyone has access to the service.
And it is especially unfair for people who already went to college.
This is the worst possible argument. You are advocating for not fixing a problem and allowing more people's lives to be massively damaged so that the people who have already had their lives damaged won't feel bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It still sounds like a niche idea that would be hard to implement and manage on a large scale. I'd say the much better idea is to offer free college for students. Then you don't need to worry about whether there is fine print in that massive contract that might screw you over for the rest of your life. It makes the system so much simpler and safer for students.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
I'm not aware of such a deal taking place. Can you clarify when this happened, and what the deal was about, specifically?
Here is a link to an article. Basically in january 2018 dems offered to fund trumps wall in exchange for protection for the dreamers. Trump refused and torpedoed any chance he had of getting democrats to fund the wall. It wasn't the dems that blocked this, it was trump and right wing republicans refusing to negotiate.
You don't need to have guards at every section of the border. Cameras and motion sensors can help detect some of these people too.
Do you have any idea how big the US border is? It is 2000 miles. There aren't border guards withing dozens of miles for large stretches of it. And if camera's and motion sensors are enough to alert guards, then you don't need a fence that people can get over or through in a matter of minutes.
Because those without tools won't be able to get in. Not everyone has basic tools anyways. Many of these people come empty handed anyways, with or without children. Having no border wall makes it even easier for them.
If they are criminals, then they will be able to afford a $100 saw. If they aren't a criminal, then they will either apply for refugee status, making the wall irrelevant, or they will use a coyote, who can afford a saw. Who do you think the wall is going to stop?
He is saving illegal lives at the cost of legal lives. He is prioritizing illegal aliens over the homeless American veterans who need a place to live. We should help ourselves before helping others.
1) you just said that this gets him votes. Obviously that isn't from the illegal immigrants, since they can't vote. That means his constituents want him to do this. If they didn't, he wouldn't get elected.
2) this is a false equivalence. You are pretending that helping one group somehow makes it impossible to help another. We can easily help both. You don't need to attack immigrants to help veterans.
Those illegal aliens should be going through the legal asylum process.
I'm sure they would like to. Unfortunately the system is broken and republicans have no interest in fixing it. In fact they are actively working to make it harder to come in legally. If they had a legal path, many would use it.
If you tax the wealthy too much, they will leave the country and invest elsewhere. This is what happened in Venezuela.
This is a fake argument. Manhattan has really high tax rates, but rich people all live there anyway. They could save millions if they moved to the suburbs. But there is a great deal of prestige that comes from living in Manhattan. Do you really think the powerful elite of washington or new york are going to move to mexico? It's not going to happen. Not to mention that they are making their money here. if they lose access to the market, they lose access to making money. Most can't just up and leave.
It's better to tax the middle class than tax the poor or rich. The poor are too broke to afford to have to pay much taxes.
So your argument is that the majority of taxes should be paid by people who can just barely afford them while the people who could easily afford them pay little to nothing? That is not a sustainable plan. Alot of societies have faced economic ruin because they did exactly what you are suggesting. The end result is you destroy the middle class and create a system where there is only the rich and the poor. At which point you have destroyed your tax base and ruin the state.
that also helps the economy because the people who built that yacht make extra money, the people who operate that hotel and provide hotel service make extra money, and then they can spend or save that money, in order to help the economy.
And if the yacht was built in Italy and the hotel is in dubai, you have written off billions in tax revenue to hand that money off to a saudi prince who owns an expensive hotel. The US government is now billions more in debt and billionaires in another country get that money instead. That is not a good plan.
"The deficit occurs because the U.S. government spending of $4.75 trillion is higher than its revenue of $3.65 trillion
That is correct. So if you give massive tax cuts to the super rich and take in way less money, then the deficit grows because you are lowering your revenue. Then people like you argue that the problem isn't the tax cuts that keep lowering revenue, it is all that social spending. So republicans start cutting programs that help poor people. So the rich get richer and the poor get screwed. The much better plan is to raise revenue by taxing the people who can easily afford it so that you can work to protect the people who can't afford it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It's the sort of plan where the devil would be in the detail. For example. If i did all of university except 1 class, then dropped out. My contract is now void. I go back the next year and finish that 1 class and i'm good.
There are just all kinds of loopholes you would need to be absolutely certain were sealed or investors would never agree to it. It would also be the sort of thing that would be very easily abused if the people managing it wanted to. People in general, but teenagers especially, are not good at thinking through the long term consequences of their actions. They could very easily be tricked into signing horrible contracts with fine print that screws them over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I find a world in which people to follow your dreams in terms of careers instead of being responsible is why we have a lot of problems. They listen. You think I want to be an accountant? Not really. Now, you have people going into debt getting worthless degrees, and they are being crippled by debt, of course. Teach more fiscal responsibility.
Your suggestion is to, essentially, teach children not to step in a trap. But the better solution is to just remove the trap. Why allow children to fall into it at all?
Corporations can't just say that they will pay a certain amount and we have to take it. There has to be a reason they can keep it so low. Now, let us say you are in a town, trying to hire a fry cook. There are two people that are qualified and looking for that job. The wage would likely be higher than if 100 equally skilled people were looking for that same job. They will undercut each others' wages in order to get the job. The corporation takes the lowest bidder.
But you are ignoring the fact that despite the fact that unemployment rates have remained low for years and profits have been increasing, but wages have not risen. Your explanation is a good econ 101 answer. But reality is much more complex than that. Immigration is not the reason wages are stagnant.
But yes, people from third-world countries have lower standards of working conditions and lower standards for wages than native workers. So, what do you get when you let a lot of them in? Worse working conditions and lower wages, because now we have to compete with people who are fine with that.
Do you know what happens when you bring in more workers? You expand your market. Every one of those immigrants will need to buy groceries, pay for clothing, housing and all the other things people need to buy. This creates jobs and opportunities. Stopping people from immigrating is a great way to stifle innovation and slow growth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It's an interesting idea. But I doubt it would work. There seems to be alot of ways it would blow up in the investor's face.
What if the student fails out of school? Would they still be required to pay back the investor even though they wouldn't be earning the kind of money they were supposed to be? And even if they did still have to honor their side of it. 8% of a low paying job for 10 years likely wouldn't cover the costs of the schooling.
What if they are unable to/don't work? Say for example they got in an accident and couldn't work, or they couldn't work as many hours. They would make significantly less money and the investor would likely take a loss.
I can't see investors taking that kind of risk. The only way i can see investors agreeing to this is if the student were locked into iron clad contracts that guarantee their profits. IE they garnish their wages until it is paid off, or a co-signee is on the hook etc. But if you add in those kinds of restrictions, then these contracts would be seriously dangerous for students. If something bad happens to you, you could be signing over the rest of your life to some investor, or potentially your family's lives as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You don't need to go to college. You can go to a trade school. We have a shortage of people going into those programs, and these certifications are incredibly cheap.
There are some paths to getting better jobs that aren't 10's of thousands. But for your example. To become a plumber takes 2 years of college. A quick search tells me that would cost between $2,000-$10,000 for tuition depending on the school. You have to be able to live without significant income for those 2 years. You might be able to do some part time work on the side, but a full time job isn't possible. You are talking about needing thousands for tuition as well as being able to live for 2 years with little to no income. If you don't have family money to get by, you are going to need 10's of thousands in tuition and living expenses that will need to be taken as loans. That is an insurmountable barrier to alot of people.
And taking on a little debt is not the end of the world, as long as you go for a valuable major, like accounting. If you get some degree in the performing arts, you brought that debt on yourself.
If you take on that much debt, you will be paying it off for years, maybe decades. If you have run into any other problems in your life, as alot of people do, then you might never be able to pay that off. The interest could crush you.
Bernie supporters are younger than 30 because people under 30 are generally uninformed in terms of life experience. Many of them don't understand taxes and how businesses operate yet. Many have very little job experience.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. People over 50 are most of the way through their working life. They don't want any changes to the system because they are afraid the changes might mess with their plans. People under 30 support change because they have very little opportunity. They are finding it extremely difficult to make any headway. They are finding that employers are offering stagnated wages while the costs of getting those jobs have gone up astronomically. The economy that the previous generations has broken, but they don't want to fix it. That is why so many millennials want fundamental change. Because they are paying the costs for the system previous generations built.
Letting in a million immigrants each year that compete with us for jobs is likely why wages are stagnant.
This is also a fundamental misunderstanding. Unemployment is low. More workers were needed to grow the economy. wages aren't low because of immigrants. This is a quasi racist right wing talking point to point the blame at politicians instead of corporations. Wages are low because companies are keeping them low. Companies are making record profits with record productivity. But they still refuse to offer competitive wages, except to executives of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You missed the shift after McCain and Paul Ryan died.
What shift? I know that some of the messaging has changed. But what policy positions have changed? Trump might, and i emphasize might, want to get out of foreign wars. But he is also picking fights with Iran so who knows.
Other than that all of his policy positions would fit right in with other sellout republicans. Largely, because he doesn't have policy positions of his own, he takes alot of them from the sellout republicans he works with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Trump has been getting blocked repeatedly from doing things like funding and building his border wall. He was finally able to build it though.
No he wasn't. Dems offered him a deal that would have fully funded building the wall. He turned it down. You can't say they are blocking something they agreed to. Also, no he isn't building it. Very little new wall has been built. He is simply taking pictures in front of sections of fencing that had already been scheduled to be replaced before he became president.
Well first of all, even if they tried to cut through the border wall, they would still have to deal with surveillance cameras, and/or border patrol agents that would arrest/shoot them on sight for destroying American property. Besides, saws tend to make a lot of noise, which would attract attention and lead to those intruders getting stopped by the border patrol.
You are talking about literally thousands of miles of border. There is not a guard within earshot of the vast majority of it. Also, if the wall can be bypassed in a few minutes with basic tools, then why would it be worth spending billions on? The truth is that the wall would cost billions and barely slow anyone down. It is barely an inconvenience.
I guarantee you, most people who are against the wall like the Obamas have walls surrounding their own property, just like how many of them who want to ban guns have armed guards for themselves. It's hypocritical.
The majority of americans do not approve of the wall. Do you think the majority of americans have armed guards?
But Gavin Newsom needs to cater to those immigrants for support/votes, because that's far more important to him, apparently.
This sentence cracks me up. A politician does something that his constituents want him to do that helps save lives, and you think the courts should stop him. That is seriously disconnected from reality.
Trump's tax cuts help the wealthy, which allows them to help the middle class by creating more jobs, which allows them to help the poor by paying their tax dollars for the welfare/SNAP benefits that they receive. That's the basic idea of Trickle Down Economics.
Trickle down economics is a lie sold to poor people by the rich. The evidence is that it isn't working. The rich got massive tax cuts (which massively increased the deficit). But the job creation rate stayed pretty much the same. The rich got to buy an extra yacht, or stay in some obscenely expensive hotel in Dubai, and the country is left with massive holes in the budget. And the republicans will point to that massive debt and say that more social spending needs to be cut to balance the budget. So they are handing money to the rich, and will then demand that the poor pay for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There has been a revolution going on in the GOP, and for the better.
I'm not sure I agree with that. You went from rich guys doing favors for their donors who want to increase military spending, cut social spending, obstructing any kind of positive change, and promise to fix stuff they will never fix, to trump. Who is a rich guy who does favors for his donors, wants to increase military spending, cut social spending, obstructs any kind of positive change and promises to fix things he will never fix (such as healthcare).
All that has really changed is that it has gotten more openly racist and abusive. The underlying policy hasn't changed at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, it is not. You are massively misinformed.
do you really think there are huge numbers of high paying jobs out there that don't require specialize training?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It is the role of the individual to invest in themselves, not the role of the company to invest in you, unless it is worthwhile to them.
This is one of the fundamental misunderstandings the right has with the modern economy. "Investing in yourself" means you need to go to school. Going to school costs 10's of thousands of dollars in many cases. If you have a family or if you aren't rich, then many people simply will never be able to do this. Others will take out 10's of thousands in loans just to find that many employers still won't pay them nearly enough to be worth having taken on that debt.
It's easy for people over 40 who grew up in a time where you could work a part time job and completely pay for school to be judgey. But in the modern world you are talking about putting yourself into debt for potentially decades to get the kind of jobs that people used to be able to get straight out of high school.
Productivity is massively up. Corporations are making record profits, but wages for workers have remained stagnant for years. The modern economy is broken. People who are trying to move up in the economy understand this. That is why Bernie sanders is massively popular among people under 30. Because they know that the system that previous generations built is screwing them over.
Created:
Posted in:
Michael Bloomberg, the 77 year old, billionaire former mayor of New York, is reportedly looking to get into the democratic race. There is a deadline to file your paperwork for (i think it was alabama) today.
1st off, I think that Bloomberg thinking he has any hope of winning is hilarious. He'll be lucky if he cracks 5%, maybe 10% if he is really successful at undermining Butigeg and taking the upper middle class vote. He is exactly the kind of candidate who has little to no base. He is economically right wing but culturally liberal. There are lots of political donors and dem establishment types that love that. There are very few voters that do.
2nd, i think it smacks of that centrist "liberal" bubble and hubris. He thinks that because he is well connected and has lots of money that he should be president. He thinks his plan of going after things like global warming and gun control will be super popular when he has nothing that makes him different than most of the other candidates. He is completely out of touch with what voters want.
3rd, i kind of like the idea of him jumping in. He has no hope hope of winning, but he will pull centrist and upper middle class support away from other candidates. People like Warren, Butigeg and, to a lesser degree, Biden should be worried about losing a few points to Bloomberg. They also might have to worry about him taking their donors which could really hurt. Biden in particular is low on cash and needs those super pacs working over time for him. if they switch to bloomberg that would be bad for him.
A candidate like Sanders will lose no support at all to someone like Bloomberg. Which to me makes it good news as it will weaken others and give Sanders a billionaire foil to play off of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
McConnel is a garbage Rino.
Agreed. He is trash. All he cares about is power. I hope he loses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I mean many of the voters as well, likely an unsurpassable amount. The news media is also against Bernie, and he's not as skilled at playing them as Trump is
I'm not so sure. Warren is also a fairly progressive candidate. between them they have something like 40% of the democratic base.
It is even more stark when you look at support by age. Biden's support is mostly among people over 65. He has very little support from people under 50.
By comparison, Sanders is the opposite. The vast majority of his support is from younger people. Even if Sanders loses this, he has built a movement. Progressive ideas have taken hold in the young people of the democratic party. Even if this cycle is won by a conservative, the next cycle will be even more driven by progressives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Paul does. He full in the fog of TDS.
I can't speak for Paul. But as i understood his point it was that losing to a dem in an extremely solidly red state is a bad sign. And it certainly could be. I'm just a bit more skeptical that it will affect trump.
But it certainly could affect McConnell. He is also really disliked. And losing a senate seat in solid red Kentucky would be a really bad thing for the republicans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The courts have tried to block him from doing legal things.
If a court blocks it, then it was illegal. That is how courts work.
Build a wall.
That's funny, because the republicans had control of the senate and the house for the 1st 2 years. They even got a deal with dems to fully fund the wall which they refused. So it is the republicans that prevented that.
Keep out criminals.
Like what? What has trump tried to do to keep out criminals? I am assuming you mean the wall, but since most criminals don't walk accross the border, and even if they did, they can usually afford the $100 saw that can cut right through it.
Save Americans money for Americans.
I'm not aware of any plans he has tried to pass for this.
Bring jobs back to the country.
He hasn't tried to do this. He has started trade wars which has been bankrupting companies and destroying lives, is that what you mean?
Get out of trade deals that are detrimental to America.
Like what? the TPP hadn't been passed. He made minor changes to NAFTA but left it 99% the way it was.
Ensure religious rights for believers. Keep terrorists out of the country.
What has he tried to do that the dems blocked?
Support American farmers.
His trade wars have been destroying american farmers. I'm not sure why you think he has been trying to support them.
Support law enforcement officers.
Again, what has he tried to do that the dems blocked?
I could go on, but you get the picture.
You've listed things that either he hasn't tried to do, or that he has had a serious negative impact on. Very few of which were blocked by dems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Democrats are too dumb and/or corrupt to support Bernie though. They want Warren, who will play ball with donors.
The party officials? Absolutely they are. But the republican party officials, including the people who now defend him, were calling trump all kinds of terrible things right up to the moment it became clear he would win. It isn't about convincing corrupt politicians that Bernie is the best option. It is about showing them that Bernie has the backing of the electorate and if they cross him their careers are over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What no Democrat mentions about KY is that there were 6 people elected that night, and in 5 of them, Republicans won.
I don't think I specifically mention that the rest of the winners were republicans. But I was pretty clear that the governor lost because he was super unlikable.
In 2020, Democrats will be yelling in the streets just as they after the 2016 election. They are falling for the illusion of their echo chamber all over again.
I don't think many people think Kentucky is likely to vote democrat in 2020.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, stop projecting what you think is the meaning of life on to others.This is pure ivory tower cereal box platitude signaling.
You think that wanting to be able to spend time with your friends, family or doing literally anything other than work is "projecting"? Do you honestly think that most people want to only work, sleep, repeat? if so then I am pretty sure it is you who is projecting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I think that the US will never be socialist, it will either continue to degrade into a consumerist oligarchy or will see a reaction. Our trajectory is very similar to that if Renaissance Florence, which collapsed under the weight of it's own decadence, usury, abuse of poor families, and warmongering.
But we are already seeing the backlash now. Trump was the 1st shot across the bow of the oligarchy. Trump based his campaign on attacking that oligarchy. Now, he immediately sold out to them once he got into power. But that energy is still there on both the right and the left. Sanders has already changed politics by bringing socialism into the mainstream. i think that is likely to continue to carry forward.
It sounds odd, but sanders might be the best placed to drive the nail into the coffin of the republicans because his populist message actually appeals to trump voters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not your responsibility to dictate to another person what they want to do to pursue their dreams. What hubris.
I never said that I should. In fact I have said multiple times that if people want to work harder and make more money then that is great. What I have said is that people who are working hard 40 hours a week should be paid a wage they can live on. People should be able to succeed in america while also having time for their friends and family. And right now that is not the case for a larger percentage of the american people.
The american dream is supposed to be based on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't think most people think working for most of their waking hours is much of a life or that they get alot of happiness from that.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Go ahead, give me one of his honest and clear answers.
On medicare for all. He is clear that taxes will go up, but that the average american family will be paying less. He is also clear on how he is going to pass it. He is going to go and make sure that any democrat (like joe manchin) who tries to obstruct gets primaried and removed. This will scare any other holdouts into actually carrying out the will of the people.
Biden and Warren's plans don't really account for how they will overcome the people in their own party who will try to stop any progressive plans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Life isn't fair snowflake.
No it isn't. But as a society we can make it fairer. We can make sure that every person gets healthcare. Every person can live off their job. If you want to work harder and make even more money, great. But no one should have to live in poverty if they are willing to work 40 hours a week.
The real parody is when you equate working hard to a death sentence.
As usual you missed my point and are making a straw man argument. I said "So if you work yourself almost to death for most of your life there is a chance you might be successful." I never said it was a death sentence. But working 16 hours a day leaves 8 hours for sleep and then you go right back to work. That leave 0 time for friends, family, church, community service, or anything else that gives life meaning. Your entire life would be consumed by work. That is not healthy and i don't think that is anyone's idea of the american dream.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PaulVerliane
people are angry to say inequality isnt an issue is to ignore reality
True, but it does depend on how you spin it. There is still a solid chunk of the american populace that thinks the "american dream" is still a real thing. They honestly believe that with hard work anyone can be a millionaire. Which is obviously nonsense, but they don't see it. For those people, they really don't care about inequality.
There is also a reasonably large chunk that like the current inequality. People in the upper middle class and above like the way things are now. They were able to succeed in the current broken system, so they don't see the problems, or if they do, they simply don't care because they benefited from them.
Then there are the people who just don't pay enough attention or understand. Some people honestly think that if you just make the rich people even richer, then somehow that will make everyone better off. Trickle down economics fooled alot of people. Thankfully this group seems to be getting smaller.
So you see, there is still a path to electoral success by playing off people who either don't see the problems, don't understand the solution, or actually like the broken system. But as millennials start to replace the Boomers and the largest voting block that path is getting smaller every year.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
By 'honest' you mean giving a series of nonanswers to basically everything and stammering to the point of incoherence when it's a really tough question? Bernie Sanders wasn't born for politics, you and I agree on that much.
No, we really don't agree on that. He is, by a wide margin, the best politician running for president right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PaulVerliane
this dude was a trump clone that says something
He was similar, i will grant you that. But he doesn't have the same con man charm. Trump is at least smart enough to primarily go after minorities. The Kentucky governor publicly attacked teachers who were trying to protect their pensions. You look really shitty when you go after the cornerstones of a community like that. He became the most hated Governor in the country. Trump still has a high approval rating in Kentucky.
This shows that trying to be like trump does not mean electoral success. That is a good thing. It might help to discourage other clones from trying to get elected. But unfortunately, it doesn't seem like it will have much of an effect on trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Stop being so overly dramatic snowflake.
This line is just self parody. i point out obvious problems and you cry about snowflakes.
People can choose to work harder than you.
No one ever said that they shouldn't have that option. But it should not be required for people to work 16 hours a day to be successful. If you can't be successful when working 40 hours a week, then the system is broken.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It might be the case that so much of what you say has been debunked in the mind of the other that they cease to take you seriously when you say something that is real. And lets not kid ourselves, pointing out that the other side is dishonest doesn't magically undo the dishonesty of the side that is pointing.
Oddly enough I kind of agree with you. Both the republicans and the mainstream dems have for years been playing a shell game. They each tell people they plan to make things better, but for the most part, they only cared about getting into power and helping out their donors. People just stopped trusting politicians because pretty much all of them would say whatever people wanted to hear and then do nothing about it.
That is why trump got elected. People thought that an outsider was the only way to get something actually done. Unfortunately, trump is a liar too and also only ever cared about money and power.
But that is why I am hopeful for Bernie Sanders. You can disagree with his positions, but very few people would accuse him of being dishonest. He tells you what he thinks the problems are, how he will fix them and then he fights for what he said. He is the populist that america needs to replace the fake populist they elected last time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Also, Democrats, as well as the ninth circuit, have been blocking Trump from making America great again for at least a year now
The courts have blocked him from doing illegal things. If you think committing crimes is making america great, then we have very different ideas of what that word means.
And what positive policies have the democrats blocked? What has trump tried to do that they won't let him?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PaulVerliane
look when democrats start to win in the south, its significant, this isnt 50 years ago it isnt een 25 years ago the south was solid democrat and is today solid republicans
Trump won kentucky by 30 points. Let's not get overly excited that the most hated governor in america lost.
but this was big, this hurts both trump and the republicans
I agree it looks bad. But kentucky isn't that big of a story. It is more about the local candidate being awful than it is with the state becoming more democrat. It is still a solidly red state.
The more important story is virginia moving from a purple state to a blue one. That is going to hurt the republicans more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PaulVerliane
Agreed. I'm not sure I would say it is inevitable. Nothing in history is ever certain. Random chance plays a bigger role in events that you would hope. It's possible something unforeseen could occur. For example the republican party deciding trump should rule for life and making america into a dictatorship. I don't think it is likely, but with how hard the republicans are working to pretend like trump hasn't committed crimes when they all know he has does not inspire confidence they would stop him.
However, barring something like that you are probably right. Basically all the democratic candidates were pushing some level of socialist policy. Maybe not some of the 1%ers but they don't matter.
Even trump threw populist and even some socialist promises into his campaign. The people want their government to actually do something to fix the country's problems. The republicans haven't come up with a new idea for decades. They just keep trying the same failed ideas over and over and pretending like they are working. The dems tried to become more like the republicans and have also failed massively. Socialism is where all the energy is at the moment. I don't see any democrat winning without being more socialist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The democratic champion can hardly best a republican pig? You should be worried.
Well keep in mind that kentucky is the deepest of red states. No one honestly thought that any democrat had a chance there. The fact that a terrible republican lost is quite surprising. I don't think this means trump is likely to lose there though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
And if you work 16 hours a day and save most of it, you will most likely be pretty successful, assuming you invest in yourself and search for opportunities.
So if you work yourself almost to death for most of your life there is a chance you might be successful. Being able to be successful shouldn't require you to work hundreds of hours a week. That is more like the Chinese sweat shop dream than the american dream.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PaulVerliane
he majority of milenials support some sort of socialsim social democracy.
Yeah this is one of the interesting dynamics. Republicans are having a hard time attracting younger voters. Right wing ideas simply haven't worked. More and more young people are looking for extreme answers. That is one of the reasons trump won. He portrayed himself as a populist that would solve the problems. He even promised to get all Americans healthcare. Of course he was lying, but he did promise these things.
Now that trump has proven that the right simply can't or won't solve the problems they were heavily involved in creating, it is pushing more and more young people toward the left. It will be interesting to see how the dynamics change over the next few cycles as millennials become the largest voting block.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PaulVerliane
the Kentucky gov had the brashness of trump without his charm. He attacked teachers and basically broke all his promises. He was the most hated governor in america. The fact that he lost is good. But if the republicans ran someone less hated, they almost certainly would have won. Trump is still liked in Kentucky. I don't think there is much of a chance of Trump losing there. But there is a small chance that Mitch McConnell could.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, but it isn't like your medicare for all plan. Private and public schools teach the same things but with different quality. The way your healthcare plan would work would prevent private companies from covering the same things.
Medicare for all would cover everything. So there is no question about quality. it is, by definition, the very highest quality possible.
The polls say that people would like universal healthcare. They overwhelming support also having private insurance as an option.
That is because people don't understand that universal healthcare with private insurance as an option, is basically going to destroy universal healthcare. The way it will play out is like this.
1) government and private healthcare options would be given.
2) sick and poor people will go for the public option as private companies wont want to insure them. Rich and healthy people will go for the private option.
- the private options will be able to be cheaper because they won't have to pay for any sick people.
3) this will force the costs of the public option way up, because they won't be taking in the profits from the healthy people but they will take on all the costs of the sick people
4) the public option will implode and republicans will point to it as evidence that government healthcare doesn't work putting us right back where we started.
If you want a universal healthcare, it needs to be universal. The public system needs the profits as well as the costs. If you allow private companies to skim off all the profits and leave all the costs for the government, you are guaranteeing it will never work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Really? They don't go to private colleges for the education?
I think you are just intentionally missing my point. So I will remind you that the discussion of schools was just as an example for how we already have public services like medicare for all.
The large majority of americans would love a medicare for all style system. Populism is the wave of the future. Trump himself ran as a populist who promised that he would get healthcare for all americans. He promptly forgot about that after getting elected, but he knows that it is popular. There is a reason that all of the dem candidates need to include this stuff even though 75% of them wish they didn't have to.
That is where the country is going.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The true rich and connected are the administrators of public schools who receive double the money per student than private schools.
My point is that the it isn't the quality of the education that draws them to that school. It is the exclusivity and prestige that comes from being a graduate. If you go to Yale or Harvard and got shit marks, you are better off then being the top student at a small college. It isn't about whether public schools are good or not. Anyone can get into a public school so rich connected people don't want to go there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
More importantly, if government-run institutions were so great, why do so many Democrat politicians come from private schools and have never set foot in a public school?
Because the leaders of both political parties tend to be rich. And the rich love the prestige of coming from an exclusive private school. Have you seen how often trump brags about his private school? It isn't about the quality of the education. It is the exclusiveness. It shows you are rich and connected.
Why are no Congressmen on Obamacare?
Because Obamacare was designed to help poor people without insurance. Congressmen aren't poor and they had insurance. Luckily, medicare for all will put congressmen and farmers on the exact same healthcare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
funny how certain people accept polls that fit their narrative but deny yours. Seems there is a desire for school choice, charter schools, vouchers etc, I wonder why if the public system is so great.
No one has ever said that choice should be removed. The idea is to make sure that everyone has access to education. If you can afford to send your kid to a private or specialist school, that's fine. But it is unacceptable to any child to be denied an education. Healthcare should be the same. If you want to spend a pile of money to go to some specialist somewhere that is fine. But no one should ever be denied healthcare and no one should have to go bankrupt to get it.
Medicare for all is the best of both worlds. You have the freedom to pick the doctor or hospital you want, but you don't have to worry about going bankrupt or being unable to afford care. You get the choice you need and avoid the horrible downsides of the current system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not sure why you are linking that. It doesn't seem relevant to the discussion we were having.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
People don't like government education. Or healthcare.
Where do you get that idea? i haven't seen anyone advocating for abolishing government education. In fact free college is quite a popular idea. Medicare for all also polls really well.
You seem to be picking things you don't like and assuming everyone agrees with you. Polling does not support that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Homeschool.
1) schooling isn't optional. By law they need to secure an education for their child. Your position on healthcare is that people shouldn't be required to have any healthcare. So this isn't really analogous.
2) only 3% of Americans choose to do this. 97% of children go to a school. And those 3% who choose to do that still have to pay taxes. If 3% of americans want to choose not to use healthcare and only do home remedies that is fine. No one will force them into a hospital.
Created: