Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[Deranged Rhino]

33 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

You do understand why Democrats would naturally be nervous, regardless of any candidate on the ballot, right?

I do, because as I’ve told you for almost a year now, they don’t have anyone who can beat Trump. You found that idea laughable. Now it’s not... 

 

Whose position is changing again?   

 

I tried to warn you what’s coming.

35 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

And before you point to Primaries as indicative of voter turnout, speaking for myself, I won't vote in the Primary this year because I know I will vote for whichever Democratic candidate is elected in November, when I will show up to cast my ballot.

 

I suspect I'm not alone in this sentiment.

Now turnout doesn’t matter. 
Polls don’t matter. 
 

So what are you basing your confidence in? What the media has told you? The same media that swore to you (lied to you) for the past three years that Trump and Russia colluded? The same media that lied to you over and over with “this time we got Trump” click bait? 
 

Look, I understand you are of a different political persuasion than Trump, that’s beside the point. You have every right to vote for whomever you wish for whatever reason you wish — what confuses me is why you continue to put your faith in those who have proven themselves to be entirely dishonest on all things Trump/political? 

[SoCal Deek]

12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Look, I understand you are of a different political persuasion than Trump, that’s beside the point. You have every right to vote for whomever you wish for whatever reason you wish — what confuses me is why you continue to put your faith in those who have proven themselves to be entirely dishonest on all things Trump/political? 

I’ll answer for him: It’s because a certain segment of the population always thinks they’re getting screwed by The Man. While the rest of have learned that The Man couldn’t care less about them. The Man is busy leading his own life!

[IDBillzFan]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Look, I understand you are of a different political persuasion than Trump, that’s beside the point. You have every right to vote for whomever you wish for whatever reason you wish — what confuses me is why you continue to put your faith in those who have proven themselves to be entirely dishonest on all things Trump/political? 

 

One of my employees years ago referred to herself as a Dead Dog Democrat. The only thing she cared about politically was that she would never, every vote for a Republican...to the extent that she would vote for a dead dog before she'd vote for a Republican.

 

I suspect that describes transplant pretty closely.

[Rob's House]

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Have you ever cringed so hard it hurt?

[IDBillzFan]

13 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

Have you ever cringed so hard it hurt?

 

Looks like the class grew up since 2009.

 

 

[njbuff]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I'd vote for him!!! ? ? 

 

He can give the Republican candidate the People's Elbow.

[ComradeKayAdams]

17 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

WI, MI, OH, PA, NH, FL.

 

Some Democrats and many independents in these key states elected Trump.  The battleground this time around will likely be the same.  I think it's more likely that more independents and dems in these states (particularly union members who have fantastic health ins benefits) will vote for Trump over Bernie or any dem this time around.  Also Bernie's views on illegal immigration will be a real drag on his candidacy beyond the primary IMO.  This stacks up as a very difficult cycle for the dems.  A lot can change in 8 or 9 months and for sure the effort to tear down Trump publicly will continue but a continued strong economy buys a lot of votes.  Going back to Eisenhower  (and probably before that) no President with Trump-like economic numbers wasn't re-elected.  Tulsi has a lot of positives but VP choices (good or bad) don't seem to matter and Bernie's too damn old. 

 

One way in which us Bernie supporters differ so greatly with Trump-supporting Republicans is our approach to economic data. I'm not denying the facts of the current GDP rate of growth, the state of the stock market, or the unemployment percentage.

 

My argument is that these macroeconomic metrics are overly simplistic, incomplete, and often misleading. What about wage growth rates versus cost of living, for example? Or home ownership numbers? Health care coverage percentages? The student debt bubble? Household savings data? Adjusted net wealth accumulation differences between Millenials and Boomers? Economic stats between whites and non-whites?

 

There are reams of data suggesting that conditions are worsening for the working class across the nation - including those Rust Belt swing states - and that the recent USMCA deal did nothing to help the situation. Without a remotely suitable social safety net, a large percentage of Americans are getting trapped in hopeless cycles of socioeconomic stagnation and poverty. It’s fairly depressing to me that so many neoliberals and Republicans either don’t see these large groups of people throughout America or – even worse – don’t care about them and have deemed them as too lazy and stupid for redemption.

[B-Man]

 

 

‘Sounds legit’: Michael Douglas claims that the late Kirk Douglas endorsed Michael Bloomberg on his deathbed

 

?

[Rob's House]

4 minutes ago, KayAdams said:

 

One way in which us Bernie supporters differ so greatly with Trump-supporting Republicans is our approach to economic data. I'm not denying the facts of the current GDP rate of growth, the state of the stock market, or the unemployment percentage.

 

My argument is that these macroeconomic metrics are overly simplistic, incomplete, and often misleading. What about wage growth rates versus cost of living, for example? Or home ownership numbers? Health care coverage percentages? The student debt bubble? Household savings data? Adjusted net wealth accumulation differences between Millenials and Boomers? Economic stats between whites and non-whites?

 

There are reams of data suggesting that conditions are worsening for the working class across the nation - including those Rust Belt swing states - and that the recent USMCA deal did nothing to help the situation. Without a remotely suitable social safety net, a large percentage of Americans are getting trapped in hopeless cycles of socioeconomic stagnation and poverty. It’s fairly depressing to me that so many neoliberals and Republicans either don’t see these large groups of people throughout America or – even worse – don’t care about them and have deemed them as too lazy and stupid for redemption.

 

Did you consider the possibility that we do see them and do care, but don't believe Federal social programs are the best solution to the problem?

[ComradeKayAdams]

6 hours ago, Rob's House said:

Bernie is dangerous.

 

I know the DNC & the Rick Wilsons of the world think he's a sure loss in the general election, but I'm not so sure. He's the only one with passionate supporters, he's appealing to those who reject the establishment, and the TDS crew will fall in line behind whoever gets the nomination.

 

The casual Bernie Bros seem to think "Democratic Socialism" means raising the minimum wage and raising taxes on the super rich so everyone can have free healthcare and college, while still retaining what is essentially a market based economy. Why they're so confident that a western European style mixed economy is the end game is a mystery to me. Given Bernie's history and rhetoric, I think something more akin to Chinese or Soviet style Communism is a more likely goal.

 

That may seem extreme, but no one's going to admit to that goal outright. It's a slow incremental approach. Recall a few years ago it was considered the height of absurdity to suggest that Obama (and by extension, the Dems) was a socialist. Fast forward just a few years and they're openly advocating for it.

 

Forgetting for a minute that governments seldom if ever cease to pursue power, Bernie's own words are cause for concern. He says he wants to "fundamentally transform" our society. That's not language to be taken lightly. That's the kind of talk that starts with a free and prosperous society and millions of corpses later ends in oppression and poverty.

 

Most of the Bernie Bros care about policy, but few really understand those policies or the history of their effects. The basis for their belief that these things will work the way they envision is that they want them to. 

 

Many of the hardcore Bernie Bros who are deep in it and have been from the start are self-avowed Marxists. I was not the least bit surprised to see that some of his paid staffers we're caught on tape defending Soviet gulags. Diving into Bernie's history shows us a guy who was enchanted with Marxist ideology, and there's no indication that he's veered from that course. It's not hard to see him trying to implement a command economy.

 

Fortunately Presidents don't have the power to make such drastic changes, but with the level of indoctrination in media, entertainment, and academia, he could start us down that path. It's a dangerous path to go down, because you don't have to go very far before you can't walk it back.

 

As one fella said, you can vote your way into Communism, but you have to shoot your way out.

 

 

 

Tingles of all people raised a similar point, but I doubt it gets much traction. Follow the link to see his take:

 

 

Can someone help me out with Step 3 below?

 

Step 1: Join Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign listserv.

Step 2: Help Bernie get elected president in November.

Step 3: ???

Step 4: Mass oppression, extreme poverty, millions of corpses piled up.

 

The twentieth century was tumultuous indeed, but aren’t there a bunch of social democratic countries that made it into the twenty-first century while managing to avoid Step 4? Or have they?! My goodness…what have I gotten myself into?! I’m just a ditzy NFL “journalist” who joined the Bernie Sanders political movement in order to meet cute Bernie Bros. I didn’t realize I was enabling a covert left-wing despot all along… In any event, I do like everyone here because you’re Buffalo Bills fans, so I will put in a good word after our takeover to make sure you get some of the better gulag assignments.

 

Over and out,

 

-Comrade Kay

[RochesterRob]

15 minutes ago, KayAdams said:

 

One way in which us Bernie supporters differ so greatly with Trump-supporting Republicans is our approach to economic data. I'm not denying the facts of the current GDP rate of growth, the state of the stock market, or the unemployment percentage.

 

My argument is that these macroeconomic metrics are overly simplistic, incomplete, and often misleading. What about wage growth rates versus cost of living, for example? Or home ownership numbers? Health care coverage percentages? The student debt bubble? Household savings data? Adjusted net wealth accumulation differences between Millenials and Boomers? Economic stats between whites and non-whites?

 

There are reams of data suggesting that conditions are worsening for the working class across the nation - including those Rust Belt swing states - and that the recent USMCA deal did nothing to help the situation. Without a remotely suitable social safety net, a large percentage of Americans are getting trapped in hopeless cycles of socioeconomic stagnation and poverty. It’s fairly depressing to me that so many neoliberals and Republicans either don’t see these large groups of people throughout America or – even worse – don’t care about them and have deemed them as too lazy and stupid for redemption.

  Yes, all the things you said are important.  The only problem is the generations old problem of settling for less.  What you think that you can extract from the other side before everybody throws their hands in the air.  Quite a bit of today's economic ruling elite are every bit the robber baron that their counterparts were a century or more in the past such as JD Rockefeller, Carnegie, Frick, and the rest.  The example is already there in terms of them buying an election such as it was with McKinley in 1896 but today's financial elites have tools available to them that their predecessors could not even imagine.  It's such a long road to get where you are talking about going to that to use an analogy we are barely on the on ramp at NY heading to LA in a Model T.

[RochesterRob]

23 minutes ago, KayAdams said:

 

Can someone help me out with Step 3 below?

 

Step 1: Join Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign listserv.

Step 2: Help Bernie get elected president in November.

Step 3: ???

Step 4: Mass oppression, extreme poverty, millions of corpses piled up.

 

The twentieth century was tumultuous indeed, but aren’t there a bunch of social democratic countries that made it into the twenty-first century while managing to avoid Step 4? Or have they?! My goodness…what have I gotten myself into?! I’m just a ditzy NFL “journalist” who joined the Bernie Sanders political movement in order to meet cute Bernie Bros. I didn’t realize I was enabling a covert left-wing despot all along… In any event, I do like everyone here because you’re Buffalo Bills fans, so I will put in a good word after our takeover to make sure you get some of the better gulag assignments.

 

Over and out,

 

-Comrade Kay

  Those presumably European social democratic countries that you refer to for decades after the Second World War did not have massive military budgets due to joining up with NATO.  This enabled them to pursue other mostly social objectives.  Trump aside there has been a growing sentiment in the US to let those nations pull more of the load in terms of defense.  But even that is complicated because if we take the handcuffs off of Japan that instantly raises tension with their long time nemesis China.

[ComradeKayAdams]

37 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

Did you consider the possibility that we do see them and do care, but don't believe Federal social programs are the best solution to the problem?

 

I have, actually, as I used to be a libertarian before I became a progressive! Private charity solutions, lowering the costs of goods and services via less government involvement, trickle down economics, etc..

 

But if I may so politely bounce the question back to you: why are social welfare programs and progressive domestic policies rising in popularity here? Why is a "socialist" like Bernie even as popular as he is, popular enough that he's on the verge of taking over one of the country's two main political parties? These are policy ideas that were once soundly rejected by Democrats in 1972 and have been rejected fairly consistently at the national executive level between 1980-2008. So why the noticeable change in national opinion? What has happened to our country?

 

 

[keepthefaith]

54 minutes ago, KayAdams said:

 

One way in which us Bernie supporters differ so greatly with Trump-supporting Republicans is our approach to economic data. I'm not denying the facts of the current GDP rate of growth, the state of the stock market, or the unemployment percentage.

 

My argument is that these macroeconomic metrics are overly simplistic, incomplete, and often misleading. What about wage growth rates versus cost of living, for example? Or home ownership numbers? Health care coverage percentages? The student debt bubble? Household savings data? Adjusted net wealth accumulation differences between Millenials and Boomers? Economic stats between whites and non-whites?

 

There are reams of data suggesting that conditions are worsening for the working class across the nation - including those Rust Belt swing states - and that the recent USMCA deal did nothing to help the situation. Without a remotely suitable social safety net, a large percentage of Americans are getting trapped in hopeless cycles of socioeconomic stagnation and poverty. It’s fairly depressing to me that so many neoliberals and Republicans either don’t see these large groups of people throughout America or – even worse – don’t care about them and have deemed them as too lazy and stupid for redemption.

 

This started as Bernie and Tulsi can beat Trump.  You'll need to back up some of your economic comments.  Unemployment has dropped almost continually since before Obama's 2nd term.  Same with the poverty rate.  Wages for most earners have grown during this same period.  Taxes for most are now less.  The USMCA deal was signed last month?  Hard to judge that yet.  The bottom 20% of Americans have achieved the least wage growth since WWII.  Nothing new there.  Most of them deserve their place IMO based on them making a  lifetime of decisions that keep them there or they're content to be there.  (disabled excluded).  I've hired and fired a bunch of them over the years. 

 

This discussion with lefties always ends up in the same place.  Tax and spend.  Pols of a certain ideology buying votes on the promise of other people's money.  It's an incredibly lazy and simplistic approach to solving "problems" 

 

 

 

 

[jrober38]

On 2/8/2020 at 1:37 PM, keepthefaith said:

 

Well, your "statistic" simply isn't correct and how is "middle class" defined?   The top 40% of wage earners over the past 50 years after adjustment for inflation have had significant wage growth and the middle quintile itself has seen on the order of a 40% increase (after inflation adjustment) over the past 50 years.  That's 60% of wage earners whose income has risen significantly over that time again adjusted for inflation.  And who are the hardest working people, the higher wage earners or the lower wager earners?  Without a doubt higher wage earners are the hardest working people which I would define by their hours worked, their responsibilities and their commitment to improving their skills over time.  The rich have mostly earned it. 

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2019/11/26/u-s-household-incomes-a-50-year-perspective

 

On what basis should the top earners who are already taxed significantly more than the bottom earners (with very few exceptions) be asked to pay even more and even further support those who are often less committed to their own work.  On what basis should the top earners be required to further fund very fiscally irresponsible governments? 

 

Is there any more tired policy than to tax the most productive more and spend more on the others?  That is a tired and lazy as hell policy. 

 

All your chart shows is that 80% of the country has been left behind. The bottom 80% of the country has seen income growth of approximately 1% per year or less over the last 50 years. That's pathetic. 

 

The rich have seen their tax bill reduced drastically over the past 50 years. Over that time, the gap between the right and the middle class has sky rocketed. The rich control almost all of the wealth in the US and the middle class has been struggling for 30 years. 

The Trump government is running a $1 trillion deficit and to reduce it they're going to gut social programs millions of Americans rely on. Trump's tax cuts didn't pay for themselves as the deficit has skyrocketed, and the rich have mostly got much richer due to the enormous rise in the stock market which has mostly gone up due to stock buy backs. Wages have only grown slightly and just over half of Americans own stocks, meaning that almost half the country hasn't benefited from the Trump economy. 

 

The current system doesn't work. If 55% of Americans want to go vote for politicians who will drastically raise the taxes on the rich, there's nothing the rich can do to stop it. There doesn't need to be any basis for that decision. Democracy should represent the will of the people. 

[snafu]

1 hour ago, KayAdams said:

 

I have, actually, as I used to be a libertarian before I became a progressive! Private charity solutions, lowering the costs of goods and services via less government involvement, trickle down economics, etc..

 

But if I may so politely bounce the question back to you: why are social welfare programs and progressive domestic policies rising in popularity here? Why is a "socialist" like Bernie even as popular as he is, popular enough that he's on the verge of taking over one of the country's two main political parties? These are policy ideas that were once soundly rejected by Democrats in 1972 and have been rejected fairly consistently at the national executive level between 1980-2008. So why the noticeable change in national opinion? What has happened to our country?

 

 

 

8 years of Obama dragging the country left, left, left and doing his best — with the help of a willing press — to normalize it. Bernie was a fringe politician and not given a second thought in 2008.  

 

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, KayAdams said:

 

I have, actually, as I used to be a libertarian before I became a progressive! Private charity solutions, lowering the costs of goods and services via less government involvement, trickle down economics, etc..

 

But if I may so politely bounce the question back to you: why are social welfare programs and progressive domestic policies rising in popularity here? Why is a "socialist" like Bernie even as popular as he is, popular enough that he's on the verge of taking over one of the country's two main political parties? These are policy ideas that were once soundly rejected by Democrats in 1972 and have been rejected fairly consistently at the national executive level between 1980-2008. So why the noticeable change in national opinion? What has happened to our country?

 

 

 

I think a few things play a role, but when you hear the agita I express about it, understand I am coming from a lifetime position of personal accountability and self-reliance. 

 

First, the interesting thing about Bernie is the way he attracts younger voters. He does this, in my mind, because many younger voters don't know jackpoopoo about personal accountability and self-reliance or most of them would not be saddled with the embarrassing amount of college debt that they simply never should have signed up for in the first place. You can't be smart enough to go to college and equally stupid enough to think it's worth borrowing six figures to make it happen. No one forced these people to take on that debt. So while it's popular to tell these kids we should cancel their debt, it's simply not only impossible, it keeps Bernie from winning big because those of us who worked our way through college and did what we could afford will be damned if we'll ever drop a red cent to help someone stupid enough to take on that debt.

 

Second, we live in the most accommodating country the world will ever see. It has created the laziest generation I've ever had the displeasure of interviewing for jobs.  No one wants to work their way up from the ground up. They don't want to hear about work challenges. They want to hear about vacation days and benefits and if there's a freaking barista on staff. They expect schitt handed to them...and Bernie is just the cranky old dude to tell them he can make it happen when the rest of the world knows that he can not.

 

But traditional Dems are losing to Bernie because traditional  Dems (Pelosi, Reid, Schumer) have spent their entire careers pissing on traditional Dem voters. They've destroyed the party. With nowhere to go, and a lazy-as-***** culture, young Dems like Bernie because he bucks the establishment, and is promising free candy at the same time.

 

He will lose worse than McCain because he's disengenous at best and unable to deliver his promises at least. But he's all the Dems have at this point. Another old, angry white dude.

 

 

[keepthefaith]

24 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

All your chart shows is that 80% of the country has been left behind. The bottom 80% of the country has seen income growth of approximately 1% per year or less over the last 50 years. That's pathetic. 

 

The rich have seen their tax bill reduced drastically over the past 50 years. Over that time, the gap between the right and the middle class has sky rocketed. The rich control almost all of the wealth in the US and the middle class has been struggling for 30 years. 

The Trump government is running a $1 trillion deficit and to reduce it they're going to gut social programs millions of Americans rely on. Trump's tax cuts didn't pay for themselves as the deficit has skyrocketed, and the rich have mostly got much richer due to the enormous rise in the stock market which has mostly gone up due to stock buy backs. Wages have only grown slightly and just over half of Americans own stocks, meaning that almost half the country hasn't benefited from the Trump economy. 

 

The current system doesn't work. If 55% of Americans want to go vote for politicians who will drastically raise the taxes on the rich, there's nothing the rich can do to stop it. There doesn't need to be any basis for that decision. Democracy should represent the will of the people. 

 

This post makes me miss DC Tom.

 

You're an idiot.  The chart in the link is adjusted for inflation so it shows increased buying power over 50 years for 80% of the population.  Have the top earners seen more increases, yes.  Are they engaged in more demanding and greater risk/reward occupations.  Absolutely.  They've earned it and they're being heavily taxed. 

 

As for your tax claim, see link below which shows the top 1%, top 5% and top 10% paying an increasing share of federal taxes since 1980 with some flattening out (staying around peak numbers) over the last 10 years. 

See chart under "Tax Cuts and Tax Fairness"

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes

 

Is there a nation anywhere that has done better for 80% of its people?

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, KayAdams said:

 

I have, actually, as I used to be a libertarian before I became a progressive! Private charity solutions, lowering the costs of goods and services via less government involvement, trickle down economics, etc..

 

But if I may so politely bounce the question back to you: why are social welfare programs and progressive domestic policies rising in popularity here? Why is a "socialist" like Bernie even as popular as he is, popular enough that he's on the verge of taking over one of the country's two main political parties? These are policy ideas that were once soundly rejected by Democrats in 1972 and have been rejected fairly consistently at the national executive level between 1980-2008. So why the noticeable change in national opinion? What has happened to our country?

 

 

Very simple. We've allowed our offspring and their offspring to be educated into that way of thinking. Modern academia has taught our children to be more concerned about "fairness" and equal outcomes than becoming the best that they could become. 

[LB3]

2 hours ago, KayAdams said:

 

I have, actually, as I used to be a libertarian before I became a progressive! Private charity solutions, lowering the costs of goods and services via less government involvement, trickle down economics, etc..

 

But if I may so politely bounce the question back to you: why are social welfare programs and progressive domestic policies rising in popularity here? Why is a "socialist" like Bernie even as popular as he is, popular enough that he's on the verge of taking over one of the country's two main political parties? These are policy ideas that were once soundly rejected by Democrats in 1972 and have been rejected fairly consistently at the national executive level between 1980-2008. So why the noticeable change in national opinion? What has happened to our country?

 

 

A terrible education system.