Democrats 2020

[Elixir]

But getting the thread back on topic.............The Dems manifesto seems to be built on the premise of envy in that anyone who has dared to study and work hard in trying to accumulate any form of wealth is by definition deemed bad and must be penalised.

The choice come November 2020 will be stark. Free-enterprise hope or a socialist no hope state!

Such bullshit, angelo. I'm sure you number me among the anti-free enterprise boogeymen you fantasize about. But I am devoid of envy for the uber-rich - rather I hold contempt for most of them.
Just FYI I have been an owner and/or officer of three successful startups in my career, have worked hard at it and have thereby accumulated sufficient wealth to provide for my immediate family and avoid becoming a burden on society. But accumulation of wealth beyond what I need or can constructively spend was never the object. Satiating greed is the unattainable object of those who think the world has unjustly deprived them of opportunity. I believe that's you, angelo, but am open to your story if it's much different. In the process of providing for my family I have helped at least some dozens of other people do the same. Working hard has been a key component of the process every time, and your disparagements are just hollow complaints that reflect your own incapacity. Projecting your helplessness upon those of us who actually understand how to work hard and provide for ourselves and our communities, is a grave disservice.

 

[southernhybrid]

But getting the thread back on topic.............The Dems manifesto seems to be built on the premise of envy in that anyone who has dared to study and work hard in trying to accumulate any form of wealth is by definition deemed bad and must be penalised.

The choice come November 2020 will be stark. Free-enterprise hope or a socialist no hope state!

Do you seriously believe that? You think that Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Booker, etc. are all socialists who are against hard work? Even the two democratic socialists in the group don't seem to be against hard work. They just believe that those who have benefitted the most from our laws, our infrastructure and our tax structure, should be more responsible for paying back more of the rewards of their success. I don't agree with most of their ideas because I see them as very unrealistic but I certainly don't see them in the way that you do.

Why does anyone needs billions and billions of dollars? Greed has become a serious disease in the world. The extreme wealth inequality isn't healthy. When this degree of wealth inequality has happened in the past, it's never ended well.

Very few people support pure socialism. It's never worked out well. But, there is nothing wrong with expecting the wealthiest among us to give up more of their wealth for the good of the country. As a person who has never been greedy and who has retired from a stressful but emotionally rewarding career, I'm content with what I have, which hopefully will be enough to provide me with a comfortable final. years of life.

I don't care if someone has much more wealth than I do. I don't want their money and I don't envy them. I just think they should be more responsible for the well being of a country that has allowed them to acquire so much wealth. Plus I'm not in favor of oligarchy, which seems to be the direction we are taking now.

Bloomberg has over 50 billion dollars and he seems to think he can buy himself an election. Do you consider him to be a socialist too? I'm not in favor of Bloomberg, but on the other hand, if he were the nominee, it would make it hard for the Republicans to use their stupid socialist tropes against him, wouldn't it?

The truth is that most of the Democratic candidates aren't at extreme. They just would like to see more Americans have decent health care, and jobs that pay enough to allow them to pay the bills, by making those at the top of the income scale be more responsible, decreasing the extreme income equality that we have currently.

 

[Harry Bosch]

But getting the thread back on topic.............The Dems manifesto seems to be built on the premise of envy in that anyone who has dared to study and work hard in trying to accumulate any form of wealth is by definition deemed bad and must be penalised.

The choice come November 2020 will be stark. Free-enterprise hope or a socialist no hope state!

Do you seriously believe that? You think that Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Booker, etc. are all socialists who are against hard work? Even the two democratic socialists in the group don't seem to be against hard work. They just believe that those who have benefitted the most from our laws, our infrastructure and our tax structure, should be more responsible for paying back more of the rewards of their success. I don't agree with most of their ideas because I see them as very unrealistic but I certainly don't see them in the way that you do.

Why does anyone needs billions and billions of dollars? Greed has become a serious disease in the world. The extreme wealth inequality isn't healthy. When this degree of wealth inequality has happened in the past, it's never ended well.

Very few people support pure socialism. It's never worked out well. But, there is nothing wrong with expecting the wealthiest among us to give up more of their wealth for the good of the country. As a person who has never been greedy and who has retired from a stressful but emotionally rewarding career, I'm content with what I have, which hopefully will be enough to provide me with a comfortable final. years of life.

I don't care if someone has much more wealth than I do. I don't want their money and I don't envy them. I just think they should be more responsible for the well being of a country that has allowed them to acquire so much wealth. Plus I'm not in favor of oligarchy, which seems to be the direction we are taking now.

Bloomberg has over 50 billion dollars and he seems to think he can buy himself an election. Do you consider him to be a socialist too? I'm not in favor of Bloomberg, but on the other hand, if he were the nominee, it would make it hard for the Republicans to use their stupid socialist tropes against him, wouldn't it?

The truth is that most of the Democratic candidates aren't at extreme. They just would like to see more Americans have decent health care, and jobs that pay enough to allow them to pay the bills, by making those at the top of the income scale be more responsible, decreasing the extreme income equality that we have currently.

To Angelo's defense: this will be the republican playbook. Even if a moderate is elected, the cry will be that the democrats want to take away everyone's wealth and to penalize people. This is why I think that dems should stress that we want a better safety net. The average person can relate to that. But if the republicans are successful in branding all democrats as socialists - Trump will win in 2020.

 

[ronburgundy]

But getting the thread back on topic.............The Dems manifesto seems to be built on the premise of envy in that anyone who has dared to study and work hard in trying to accumulate any form of wealth is by definition deemed bad and must be penalised.

No, just like with Climate Change, guns, crime, and homosexuality, the Dems just accept the scientific reality of wealth disparity. Thus, they reject the scientifically refuted right-wing myth that hard work and innate talent are the sole cause of wealth inequality and that instead random luck and chance events are the biggest factors. They accept the fact that unethical behavior driven by greed also play a major role in wealth distribution. While some far leftists may be against free enterprise, the Dem party overall is not and accepts that we should have a system that rewards effort and merit, but that systematic redistribution from the top to the bottom is needed to correct for the more extreme effect of random chance, effects that not only are bad for those at the bottom but generally destabilize society and erode the social contract.

The choice in 2020 is between the party that accepts the relevant science and has basic human empathy vs. the party driven by extreme greed, bigotry, and inhumane lack of empathy, and (as they have been doing for decades) is deliberately trying to create a war and put Americans at lethal risk to stoke the kind of fears and nationalism that drive people toward right-wing ideology like a frightened child under their mom's skirt.

 

[ZiprHead]

Jesus never said anything that we know of. Just a lot of other people telling us what Jesus said.
Religions are bullshit.

Oh, I agree. But if it's going to be used, as above, use the words of the man himself.

Who, Geezus of a town called Nazareth himself? It's very doubtful such a one existed in real history.

Didn't I just say that?

 

[angelo]

But getting the thread back on topic.............The Dems manifesto seems to be built on the premise of envy in that anyone who has dared to study and work hard in trying to accumulate any form of wealth is by definition deemed bad and must be penalised.

The choice come November 2020 will be stark. Free-enterprise hope or a socialist no hope state!

Such bullshit, angelo. I'm sure you number me among the anti-free enterprise boogeymen you fantasize about. But I am devoid of envy for the uber-rich - rather I hold contempt for most of them.
Just FYI I have been an owner and/or officer of three successful startups in my career, have worked hard at it and have thereby accumulated sufficient wealth to provide for my immediate family and avoid becoming a burden on society. But accumulation of wealth beyond what I need or can constructively spend was never the object. Satiating greed is the unattainable object of those who think the world has unjustly deprived them of opportunity. I believe that's you, angelo, but am open to your story if it's much different. In the process of providing for my family I have helped at least some dozens of other people do the same. Working hard has been a key component of the process every time, and your disparagements are just hollow complaints that reflect your own incapacity. Projecting your helplessness upon those of us who actually understand how to work hard and provide for ourselves and our communities, is a grave disservice.

Geezus H Krist. You're so much like my brother [ a millionaire] who's also a socialist and backs our socialist party: Labor. Although he was scared shitless that had Labor won the last Aussie Federal election, his payee taxes would have gone through the roof. But then I look at people such as Soros, billionaires who use their money to buy their idea of a single party [ socialist ] bordeless world government.

 

[angelo]

But getting the thread back on topic.............The Dems manifesto seems to be built on the premise of envy in that anyone who has dared to study and work hard in trying to accumulate any form of wealth is by definition deemed bad and must be penalised.

No, just like with Climate Change, guns, crime, and homosexuality, the Dems just accept the scientific reality of wealth disparity. Thus, they reject the scientifically refuted right-wing myth that hard work and innate talent are the sole cause of wealth inequality and that instead random luck and chance events are the biggest factors. They accept the fact that unethical behavior driven by greed also play a major role in wealth distribution. While some far leftists may be against free enterprise, the Dem party overall is not and accepts that we should have a system that rewards effort and merit, but that systematic redistribution from the top to the bottom is needed to correct for the more extreme effect of random chance, effects that not only are bad for those at the bottom but generally destabilize society and erode the social contract.

The choice in 2020 is between the party that accepts the relevant science and has basic human empathy vs. the party driven by extreme greed, bigotry, and inhumane lack of empathy, and (as they have been doing for decades) is deliberately trying to create a war and put Americans at lethal risk to stoke the kind of fears and nationalism that drive people toward right-wing ideology like a frightened child under their mom's skirt.

You're describing a Dems manifesto to a T without even realising it! Except for the very stupid comments that random luck is responsible for wealth creation. that may be so in a few cases such as winning a lottery or filthy rich uncle Joe dropping dead and leaving all his wealth to him/her. But then the question must be answered, " How Did Uncle Joe Accumulate his Wealth?"

It's like the atheist theist argument of where did life originate. If one says here on Earth, then the question becomes how? If one says elsewhere. It only pushes the question elsewhere!

 

[Patooka]

But then I look at people such as Soros, billionaires who use their money to buy their idea of a single party [ socialist ] bordeless world government.

This statement has been brought to you by News Limited.

 

[angelo]

By the way. Ain't it the Dems who back practically unrestricted immigration to the US? Even after such incidents?................................................. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Soleimani.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK

 

[angelo]

But then I look at people such as Soros, billionaires who use their money to buy their idea of a single party [ socialist ] bordeless world government.

This statement has been brought to you by News Limited.

Open your eyes! There's not one who can see wearing a blindfold!

 

[TV and credit cards]

But getting the thread back on topic.............The Dems manifesto seems to be built on the premise of envy in that anyone who has dared to study and work hard in trying to accumulate any form of wealth is by definition deemed bad and must be penalised.

No, just like with Climate Change, guns, crime, and homosexuality, the Dems just accept the scientific reality of wealth disparity. Thus, they reject the scientifically refuted right-wing myth that hard work and innate talent are the sole cause of wealth inequality and that instead random luck and chance events are the biggest factors. They accept the fact that unethical behavior driven by greed also play a major role in wealth distribution. While some far leftists may be against free enterprise, the Dem party overall is not and accepts that we should have a system that rewards effort and merit, but that systematic redistribution from the top to the bottom is needed to correct for the more extreme effect of random chance, effects that not only are bad for those at the bottom but generally destabilize society and erode the social contract.

The choice in 2020 is between the party that accepts the relevant science and has basic human empathy vs. the party driven by extreme greed, bigotry, and inhumane lack of empathy, and (as they have been doing for decades) is deliberately trying to create a war and put Americans at lethal risk to stoke the kind of fears and nationalism that drive people toward right-wing ideology like a frightened child under their mom's skirt.

You're describing a Dems manifesto to a T without even realising it! Except for the very stupid comments that random luck is responsible for wealth creation. that may be so in a few cases such as winning a lottery or filthy rich uncle Joe dropping dead and leaving all his wealth to him/her. But then the question must be answered, " How Did Uncle Joe Accumulate his Wealth?"

It's like the atheist theist argument of where did life originate. If one says here on Earth, then the question becomes how? If one says elsewhere. It only pushes the question elsewhere!

Very Stupid Scientific American Article: The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized

However, talent was definitely not sufficient because the most talented individuals were rarely the most successful. In general, mediocre-but-lucky people were much more successful than more-talented-but-unlucky individuals. The most successful agents tended to be those who were only slightly above average in talent but with a lot of luck in their lives.

 

[ZiprHead]

But then I look at people such as Soros, billionaires who use their money to buy their idea of a single party [ socialist ] bordeless world government.

This statement has been brought to you by News Limited.

Yeah, I really wonder where he comes up with these fantasies. He's like if Lyndon LaRouche and Ayn Rand had a love child.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But then I look at people such as Soros, billionaires who use their money to buy their idea of a single party [ socialist ] bordeless world government.

This statement has been brought to you by News Limited.

Yeah, I really wonder where he comes up with these fantasies. He's like if Lyndon LaRouche and Ayn Rand had a love child.

It is a political Madlib that became sentient. I mean, anyone remember President Obama seizing the oil fields?

 

[lpetrich]

angelo seems to subscribe to the Randroid theory of wealth creation: that it is exclusively done by those on the tops of organizations, that everybody else is essentially an overpaid parasite.

Very Stupid Scientific American Article: The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized

However, talent was definitely not sufficient because the most talented individuals were rarely the most successful. In general, mediocre-but-lucky people were much more successful than more-talented-but-unlucky individuals. The most successful agents tended to be those who were only slightly above average in talent but with a lot of luck in their lives.

So one does not have to be a super virtuous Stakhanovite to "succeed".

 

[angelo]

Isn't this Democratic thread? We are, or should all be aware that the Dems record of wealth creation for the good of all is zilch! But admittedly they do have an enviable record of propping up the bludgers and illegal immigrants. They really could only better their record by handing these interlopers a government paid for credit card! But back to the do nothing Pelosi on impeachment proceedings...................

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gr...change-to-remove-her-from-impeachment-process

Graham gives Pelosi ultimatum, proposes Senate rule change to remove her from impeachment process

 

[blastula]

Speaking of the billionaire class............................De Vito should lead by example and distribute all his wealth to the needy, just like a good little socialist should and set an example before supporting loonies such as Sanders!

Another Hollywood has-been goes low. This endorsement should not come as a surprise to anyone. Danny DeVito had previously endorsed Jeremy Corbyn in Britain in 2017. As such, it is only natural that DeVito would endorse another bigoted socialist in the United States. DeVito will surely not be the last person in Hollywood to endorse the dreadful Bernie Sanders. This endorsement is just the latest example of how stupid the people in the entertainment industry really are.

[ source https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...on-2017-labour-grime4corbyn-940-a7744116.html ]

Sanders is a bigot? You read the stupidest people.

In other news, Sanders has been rebounding.

Iowa and New Hampshire poll: Bernie Sanders starts 2020 in strong position in 2 early states — CBS News Battleground Tracker poll - CBS News

 

[lpetrich]

Sheila Bair: I am a Republican, and I hope the Democrats pick a candidate I can vote for - The Washington Post

Trump now has three years of experience as president. While he has had some policy victories, he has also given opponents plenty of issues with which to bludgeon him. Democratic partisans are almost maniacal in their eagerness to oust him. They seem most interested in finding the candidate best positioned to do so, regardless of qualifications. Enter Pete Buttigieg, whose primary asset seems to be a thin résumé. He hasn’t done much to prove his chops in the national political arena. On the other hand, his lack of a record would provide scant fodder for Trump to exploit in a general election.

Then on how he has never held national office or state office -- he was in the armed forces and he was a mayor. She thinks that he might be a good candidate if he picks up something like 10 years of experience. She then talks about Barack Obama.

Obama was, and is, an exceptional, inspirational leader, skilled politician and grass-roots organizer. He was also 10 years Buttigieg’s senior when he was elected president and had served four years in the U.S. Senate.

Importantly, many feel Obama could have been even more effective if he had waited longer to become president. This is particularly true in the area of financial reform, where his inexperience led him to rely heavily on establishment advisers who had played major roles in devising the very financial system he was trying to reform. The result was incremental change without a restructuring of Washington’s power structure. As a consequence, the beneficial reforms achieved under Obama have remained under relentless attack by those same powers.

Summarized with
The Washington Post on Twitter: "Opinion: "I am a Republican, and I hope the Democrats pick a candidate I can vote for" https://t.co/dmESHBbgQi" / Twitter

That strikes me as extremely naive. Obama's presidency was ruthlessly obstructed by the Republicans, even though it was pretty much Clinton-style centrism.

Then AOC responded
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "How about “I am a Republican and will be voting Democrat because Trump is an authoritarian threat to our collective wellbeing.” https://t.co/yBCwseMqfy" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

Sunrise Movement on Twitter: "We are proud to announce that our movement has voted resoundingly to endorse @BernieSanders for President of the United States.
Join the #GreenNewDeal political revolution: [url]https://t.co/3eXE0XsIUv
#Sunrise4Bernie https://t.co/cAO09Irndt" / Twitter[/url]
Has video of SM head Varshini Prakash explaining her reasoning. BS has the best plans for dealing with something disastrous that is happening *now*.

Bernie Sanders on Twitter: "Thanks to the @sunrisemvmt's tireless efforts to avert climate catastrophe, our nation is finally recognizing the need to act boldly and quickly.
I'm honored to receive their endorsement.
Together, we'll launch the Green New Deal and build a more just and equitable future. https://t.co/VrUAJWGqIJ" / Twitter

People for Bernie on Twitter: "80.4% of @sunrisemvmt voters were under the age of 35, with 2000 being the birth year with the highest frequency and the average age of the voter being 29.
Here's @BernieSanders talking about climate change in 1987. https://t.co/x4PrMan2Tq" / Twitter

Looking at the SM candidate scorecard, it only has entries for BS, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden. But EW is almost as good as BS and JB is much worse than both of them. Presidential Scorecard — Sunrise Movement

Seems like AOC - they like both BS and EW, and I wonder if they apologized to EW behind the scenes and said that they had to pick only one.
Elizabeth Warren on Twitter: "It's going to take bold plans and a grassroots movement fighting together to defeat the climate crisis. I'm grateful for @SunriseMvmt's leadership in this fight, and I'm proud to fight alongside them for a #GreenNewDeal that rebuilds our economy powered by 100% clean energy." / Twitter
then
Varshini Prakash on Twitter: "Thank you for running a principled, visionary campaign for President, @ewarren.
he Democratic field is only strengthened by your leadership. It’s been a pleasure to watch you unveil landmark climate policy & campaign boldly for a #GreenNewDeal.
and
[url=https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1215348871565463552]Sunrise Movement on Twitter: "We’re grateful for @ewarren's partnership with our movement and look forward to continuing to work together to win a Green New Deal and raise the political urgency of addressing the climate crisis. https://t.co/XtbY0gmvOc" / Twitter
Stay classy & stay fighting. https://t.co/PnMV7sysFy" / Twitter[/url]

 

[lpetrich]

Secular Talk on Twitter: "I know your terrible advisers told you to be more relatable and dance but really the trick is just being your authentic self. No more no less @ewarren https://t.co/iNSagQhqZH" / Twitter
I think that he thinks that Elizabeth Warren is a terrible dancer. But in dancing, EW joins Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and AOC.

Ryan Knight * on Twitter: "@KyleKulinski @ewarren Has it ever occured to you that this is just how she dances? This is her authentic self and she is really likable. Bernie is great too, but you make him look bad with posts like this." / Twitter

Every crying billionaire is a policy success on Twitter: "@KyleKulinski @ewarren She's danced the whole time and she's adorable. When are you going to mock Bernie for dancing?" / Twitter

Leslie Mac on Twitter: "@KyleKulinski As someone actually in the room - this was very authentic. The whole room was dancing. So much positive energy. It’s interesting how authenticity only seems to come up for Women candidates. And by interesting I mean predictable AF." / Twitter

 

[angelo]

This is what a sanders presidency my look like. And may your gods save America!

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...s-president-white-house-administration-084447

What Would the Bernie Presidency Really Look Like?
It could happen, really. Vice President Warren is being considered, and plans are in the works to de-Trumpify immigration and climate. Much less likely: Medicare for All.