Pegulas to buy energy business

[billsfan89]

2 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

This is a super marxist approach to historical analysis. Not very vogue for today's political climate. The fact that you describe Bernie Sanders as "a fairly moderate social Democrat" tells me that your issue is not that the Democrats aren't liberal, but that they aren't liberal enough. It colors everything you think about the party today v. the party then. 

 

Let's start with universal healthcare. FDR supported it, but knew he couldn't get it passed, which is why he never seriously pushed it.  Why couldn't he pass it? Because he couldn't get the votes from his own party, nor the Republicans. Its basically the same situation that today's Democratic party is faced with. Still, as of today, over 50% support universal healthcare. There has never been more support for universal healthcare, both inside and outside of government. Sanders, who almost took Biden, supported universal healthcare, as did every other major Democratic challenger. Even now, I think its pretty obvious that the only reason Biden doesn't openly support it is he is trying to win swing votes, and all he has to do to win the election is not be controversial.  

 

I don't really know what the 10% military budget cut gets you. It didn't pass the Senate, despite considerable Democratic support. By the time it got to the House, it was all political calculus: no use taking a controversial stance if isn't going anywhere. 

 

Aso the wildly generic and nonsensical statement: "'[t]he vast majority of the party is against universal programs that help the middle class." I don't really even know what this means.  If you want to know what empty rhetoric looks like, it is this. 

 

Your argument on social issues is just "yeah, it was inevitable."  That isn't an argument.  Those issues enjoy almost universal support from the Democratic party in a way that could not be dreamed of even 10 years ago.  You can't just glaze over that, because you want more from the party. 

 

FDR didn't push for universal healthcare because he died in office (in his 4th term, as it turns out his economic agenda was insanely popular.) FDR used his popularity as president to push his agenda not work his agenda to be workable within the system. FDR literally put healthcare into his economic bill of rights platform he was building for his 4th term. 

 

Democrats always favor means tested half measures. Look at the primary for an example of this. Sanders was the only democrat in the primary to push universal student debt forgiveness. Everyone else either wanted means tested solutions or half measures like lowering interest. Sanders was the only democrat to push for medical debt forgiveness (medical debt should be non-existant in a developed nation.) Sanders was the only one who wanted fully publicly funded public college and community college. Any other candidate always put forward means testing or half solutions even Warren someone supposedly to the farther left of the party. Even Medicare for All which some polling shows a majority of Republicans favor was only in full force supported by Sanders throughout the primary (Warren and Gabbard softened their stances and the rest outright backed away from it.) 

 

Even in the Coronavirus Relief bill back in March their solution to people losing their health insurance because they lost their job (another moronic idea) the vast majority of the party was proposing to subsidize COBRA (the most expensive insurance there is) or open up Obamacare exchanges. The radical idea of expanding Medicare to everyone in the US temporarily during a public health crisis wasn't even broached by this party you think is far left. So no it isn't empty rhetoric it is a study of recent political history and the actions of the party. 

 

Yes maybe for a conservative the Dems are too spicy and left on economic issues, but for the significant majority of the country that favors a populist left agenda they are at best center left. Based on their favoring of means testing and half measures over universal programs and bold action. The reason Biden isn't supporting Medicare for All isn't because of swing voters (swing voters like the policy 60% support among independents in most polls) but because he doesn't believe in it. He likes the Healthcare lobby and its money. It's that simple.

 

As far as the social policy argument. My point wasn't this is inevitable. But rather that at any point since the 1970's you could look at the Democratic parties social platform and view it as "the farthest left they have ever been." That doesn't mean that they are correct or wrong (although typically they end up being correct) but rather that using that as a gauge for the parties overall platform is misleading. But that also doesn't always even translate into policy. For all the talk of social and racial justice what major moves has the Dem party taken to actually do any action other than lipservice?

Edited July 23, 2020 by billsfan89

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

26 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

FDR didn't push for universal healthcare because he died in office (in his 4th term, as it turns out his economic agenda was insanely popular.) FDR used his popularity as president to push his agenda not work his agenda to be workable within the system. FDR literally put healthcare into his economic bill of rights platform he was building for his 4th term. 

 

Democrats always favor means tested half measures. Look at the primary for an example of this. Sanders was the only democrat in the primary to push universal student debt forgiveness. Everyone else either wanted means tested solutions or half measures like lowering interest. Sanders was the only democrat to push for medical debt forgiveness (medical debt should be non-existant in a developed nation.) Sanders was the only one who wanted fully publicly funded public college and community college. Any other candidate always put forward means testing or half solutions even Warren someone supposedly to the farther left of the party. Even Medicare for All which some polling shows a majority of Republicans favor was only in full force supported by Sanders throughout the primary (Warren and Gabbard softened their stances and the rest outright backed away from it.) 

 

Even in the Coronavirus Relief bill back in March their solution to people losing their health insurance because they lost their job (another moronic idea) the vast majority of the party was proposing to subsidize COBRA (the most expensive insurance there is) or open up Obamacare exchanges. The radical idea of expanding Medicare to everyone in the US temporarily during a public health crisis wasn't even broached by this party you think is far left. So no it isn't empty rhetoric it is a study of recent political history and the actions of the party. 

 

Yes maybe for a conservative the Dems are too spicy and left on economic issues, but for the significant majority of the country that favors a populist left agenda they are at best center left. Based on their favoring of means testing and half measures over universal programs and bold action. The reason Biden isn't supporting Medicare for All isn't because of swing voters (swing voters like the policy 60% support among independents in most polls) but because he doesn't believe in it. He likes the Healthcare lobby and its money. It's that simple.

 

As far as the social policy argument. My point wasn't this is inevitable. But rather that at any point since the 1970's you could look at the Democratic parties social platform and view it as "the farthest left they have ever been." That doesn't mean that they are correct or wrong (although typically they end up being correct) but rather that using that as a gauge for the parties overall platform is misleading. But that also doesn't always even translate into policy. For all the talk of social and racial justice what major moves has the Dem party taken to actually do any action other than lipservice?

 

Ah. There is so much I want to dive into, but at some point I have to respect the rules of the board.  I think we are compelled to find a different venue for this, and so I will only make three brief points: first, FDR wanted universal healthcare to accompany the Social Security Act; it was removed because he thought he would lose the rest of the bill if it included universal healthcare, illustrating that he made political calculi similar to what today's Party make. Second, most of what you say here are reasons the Party is not far enough left, and are not reasons FDR was farther left than today's party. Third, though your point on social justice issues is well taken, I don't think the Party has ever so radically redefined its approach to social justice issues. Where it once was dragged begrudgingly to address these issues, the approach of today's Party is to lean into them. Let's just keep in mind that FDR interned Japanese Americans and refused to support anti-lynching legislation.  

 

There is more to be said, and I would like to go deeper, but like I said, this isn't really the right forum. 

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Ah. There is so much I want to dive into, but at some point I have to respect the rules of the board.  I think we are compelled to find a different venue for this, and so I will only make three brief points: first, FDR wanted universal healthcare to accompany the Social Security Act; it was removed because he thought he would lose the rest of the bill if it included universal healthcare, illustrating that he made political calculi similar to what today's Party make. Second, most of what you say here are reasons the Party is not far enough left, and are not reasons FDR was farther left than today's party. Third, though your point on social justice issues is well taken, I don't think the Party has ever so radically redefined its approach to social justice issues. Where it once was dragged begrudgingly to address these issues, the approach of today's Party is to lean into them. Let's just keep in mind that FDR interned Japanese Americans and refused to support anti-lynching legislation.  

 

There is more to be said, and I would like to go deeper, but like I said, this isn't really the right forum. 

 

Good point.  Today's Democratic Party's attitudes on race-based internment and lynching would put them far left of Karl Marx.

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Ah. There is so much I want to dive into, but at some point I have to respect the rules of the board.  I think we are compelled to find a different venue for this, and so I will only make three brief points: first, FDR wanted universal healthcare to accompany the Social Security Act; it was removed because he thought he would lose the rest of the bill if it included universal healthcare, illustrating that he made political calculi similar to what today's Party make. Second, most of what you say here are reasons the Party is not far enough left, and are not reasons FDR was farther left than today's party. Third, though your point on social justice issues is well taken, I don't think the Party has ever so radically redefined its approach to social justice issues. Where it once was dragged begrudgingly to address these issues, the approach of today's Party is to lean into them. Let's just keep in mind that FDR interned Japanese Americans and refused to support anti-lynching legislation.  

 

There is more to be said, and I would like to go deeper, but like I said, this isn't really the right forum. 

 

Everyone makes political calculations, but FDR was still pursuing universal healthcare (which is such a win for everyone besides insurance companies I have honestly no clue how anyone could not support it) in his 4th term making it the priority of his platform in his 4th term. Not to get lost in the weeds here but the Democratic party of today is a center right party by most industrialized nations standards and even by America's warped to the right standards it is still a center left party not pushing any real radical change in any meaningful sense. All of their solutions to economic problems tend to be incremental steps that are usually heavily means tested. 

 

FDR however often preferred universal dramatic solutions that speak to the core of the Progressive movement and what it means to be firmly left economically. You have social security which was a universal program that almost any working American has access to, you had massive jobs and infrastructure programs that didn't include any tax cuts for the rich. Whereas Obama's stimulus bill was 40% tax cuts. FDR promoted massive public works and universal programs that are no longer seen in American mainstream politics no matter how badly they are needed and shown to be effective. 

 

The fact that the party twice threw everything it had to stop Bernie Sanders tells you that economically they are far from FDR. I have never seen such an epic coordination against a single candidate in my lifetime. And the reason they stopped Sanders was two fold. One like Serpico if you don't take the money (corporate pac and campaign contributions) then your hands aren't dirty and you become a problem for those who take the money and less conspiratorially they don't believe in his platform. 

 

As I said before even on social justice issues do they actually do anything on those issues? In 2015 Ferguson happened under Obama and all that they did was some moderate police reform mostly built around the idea of body camera funding and non binding mandates. They didn't even push anything and have it killed by the GOP they watered down any and everything deemed left of center to the point where it is DOA or ineffective if it gets passed. So yes the language might be more radical by some members but does it actually result in anything? I don't agree with all of the social platforms and language but will it translate into meaningful policy?

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

9 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Everyone makes political calculations, but FDR was still pursuing universal healthcare (which is such a win for everyone besides insurance companies I have honestly no clue how anyone could not support it) in his 4th term making it the priority of his platform in his 4th term. Not to get lost in the weeds here but the Democratic party of today is a center right party by most industrialized nations standards and even by America's warped to the right standards it is still a center left party not pushing any real radical change in any meaningful sense. All of their solutions to economic problems tend to be incremental steps that are usually heavily means tested. 

 

FDR however often preferred universal dramatic solutions that speak to the core of the Progressive movement and what it means to be firmly left economically. You have social security which was a universal program that almost any working American has access to, you had massive jobs and infrastructure programs that didn't include any tax cuts for the rich. Whereas Obama's stimulus bill was 40% tax cuts. FDR promoted massive public works and universal programs that are no longer seen in American mainstream politics no matter how badly they are needed and shown to be effective. 

 

The fact that the party twice threw everything it had to stop Bernie Sanders tells you that economically they are far from FDR. I have never seen such an epic coordination against a single candidate in my lifetime. And the reason they stopped Sanders was two fold. One like Serpico if you don't take the money (corporate pac and campaign contributions) then your hands aren't dirty and you become a problem for those who take the money and less conspiratorially they don't believe in his platform. 

 

As I said before even on social justice issues do they actually do anything on those issues? In 2015 Ferguson happened under Obama and all that they did was some moderate police reform mostly built around the idea of body camera funding and non binding mandates. They didn't even push anything and have it killed by the GOP they watered down any and everything deemed left of center to the point where it is DOA or ineffective if it gets passed. So yes the language might be more radical by some members but does it actually result in anything? I don't agree with all of the social platforms and language but will it translate into meaningful policy?

 

So we not respecting the rules of the board? 

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

So we not respecting the rules of the board? 

 

Fair point I will not reply anymore

[Capco]

@JoshAllenHasBigHands Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.  Here's where our two parties lie on a complete left-right spectrum of the major political parties in the world.  

 

If you drew a line connecting those two highlighted dots and found their midpoint (i.e. the middle of America), it would fall quite far to the right of the center as defined by the aggregate political policies of the entire world.  

 

The United States is one of the most right wing industrialized nations in the world.  

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 hours ago, Capco said:

@JoshAllenHasBigHands Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.  Here's where our two parties lie on a complete left-right spectrum of the major political parties in the world.  

 

If you drew a line connecting those two highlighted dots and found their midpoint (i.e. the middle of America), it would fall quite far to the right of the center as defined by the aggregate political policies of the entire world.  

 

The United States is one of the most right wing industrialized nations in the world.  

I wasnt disputing that America is a center-right country. I know this chart is true. Im saying our Democratic Party is farther left on that spectrum than its ever been. Couple others were disagreeing, arguing that FDR was far more progressive than today’s party.

[Milanos Milano]

Well the IPO closed. How long do you think until they start acquiring assets? 

[Mr. WEO]

12 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Well the IPO closed. How long do you think until they start acquiring assets? 

 

 

It's not just a physical asset buying company:

 

formed for the purpose of entering into a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses in the energy industry in North America.

[Milanos Milano]

5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

It's not just a physical asset buying company:

 

formed for the purpose of entering into a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses in the energy industry in North America.

Either way, Terry controls a 1/3 of the shares and is CEO. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Either way, Terry controls a 1/3 of the shares and is CEO. 

 

ok...

[Milanos Milano]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

ok...

Dude knows how get that ROI. I trust him. 

[Mr. WEO]

10 minutes ago, IronMaidenBills said:

Dude knows how get that ROI. I trust him. 

 

 

You mean you gave him your money in that IPO?

[Milanos Milano]

11 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

You mean you gave him your money in that IPO?

You don’t think he can take 300 million and increase the market capitalization of a company he is leading? 

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, IronMaidenBills said:

You don’t think he can take 300 million and increase the market capitalization of a company he is leading? 

 

You said you "trust him".  Unless you gave him your money, what are you trusting him with?  Did you?

 

 

His other business has a new "goal" of staying "viable".

[Doc]

24 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

You said you "trust him".  Unless you gave him your money, what are you trusting him with?  Did you?

 

 

His other business has a new "goal" of staying "viable".

 

Which other business is that?  The sports and entertainment one? 

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Which other business is that?  The sports and entertainment one? 

 According to them yes.

[Doc]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 According to them yes.

 

...and?

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

...and?

 

has a new "goal" of staying "viable".