Democrats 2020

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

it is almost as if I didn't use the word "if" multiple times. Or said "Take it for what you will".

Yeah, it's almost like you didn't bring it to the discussion at all!

I found something interesting and shared it. You apparently think that's wrong.

It's not interesting. It's disinformation that the conservolibertarian Tucker Carlson wants to spread everywhere.

 

[southernhybrid]

If Klobuchar was announced as Biden's running mate today, she could give highly competent speeches and reports about this. No fucking way Biden can.

Then perhaps Klobuchar should be chosen to run against the Trump not Creepy Joe? Then there's that small matter of Tara Reade which most liberal media is ignoring, for now.

Maybe it's because her story isn't credible. I always seriously consider what a woman claims, but I know very well that a small percentage of women will lie if they think it's in their best interests to do so. Reade is a Bernie supporter. Her story sounds fake to me, especially since no other woman who has known Joe Biden, has ever made a similar claim. Meanwhile, at least 23 women accused Donald Trump of rape or sexual assault but nobody in his tent seemed to give a shit. Now, you think that Democrats should take one woman's fake sounding claim from 1993 seriously!

We all know that Biden has a history of being overly affectionate. He's never had a history of being a sexual assaulter. Bill Clinton was accused of sexual assault by several women. Those claims may have been credible, although those claims didn't work against his political career. Trump is the worst, yet not once have I seen you write anything about all the claims made by credible women. Not once have I seen his supporters here say they were disgusted by any of his sexist remarks, yet he's a man who openly made the statement that he can grab women by the pussies.

Please spare me your concern about this one seemingly desperate, almost 30 year old claim, by one woman who doesn't seem very credible.

I would have preferred a strong female candidate, but we didn't have one who was able to get enough support to be the nominee. So, at least we have someone with a lot of experience, who knows what the job entails, unlike the idiot we have in the WH now.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If Klobuchar was announced as Biden's running mate today, she could give highly competent speeches and reports about this. No fucking way Biden can.

Then perhaps Klobuchar should be chosen to run against the Trump not Creepy Joe? Then there's that small matter of Tara Reade which most liberal media is ignoring, for now.

Maybe it's because her story isn't credible. I always seriously consider what a woman claims, but I know very well that a small percentage of women will lie if they think it's in their best interests to do so. Reade is a Bernie supporter. Her story sounds fake to me, especially since no other woman who has known Joe Biden, has ever made a similar claim. Meanwhile, at least 23 women accused Donald Trump of rape or sexual assault but nobody in his tent seemed to give a shit. Now, you think that Democrats should take one woman's fake sounding claim from 1993 seriously!

We all know that Biden has a history of being overly affectionate. He's never had a history of being a sexual assaulter. Bill Clinton was accused of sexual assault by several women. Those claims may have been credible, although those claims didn't work against his political career. Trump is the worst, yet not once have I seen you write anything about all the claims made by credible women. Not once have I seen his supporters here say they were disgusted by any of his sexist remarks, yet he's a man who openly made the statement that he can grab women by the pussies.

Please spare me your concern about this one seemingly desperate, almost 30 year old claim, by one woman who doesn't seem very credible.

I would have preferred a strong female candidate, but we didn't have one who was able to get enough support to be the nominee. So, at least we have someone with a lot of experience, who knows what the job entails, unlike the idiot we have in the WH now.

I half agree with you. But. Hold on, though.

To be clear, Bernie is Tara Reade's third choice. She first supported Marianne Williamson, then Elizabeth Warren. Just like you, she preferred a female candidate.

She originally made claims against Biden in April of 2019. Back then, Marianne Williamson was still in the race. So that woman was her candidate choice at the time.

She stood with 4 other women at the time talking about Biden inappropriately touching them. Some of these women are prominent Democrats. Her story SEEMED believable at the time.

The problem is that her story was never fully told. She was saying back in April 2019 that there was more to the story. So the sex assault narrative was there in her head in 2019 whether true or false. Let's say false but she didn't elaborate.

While she was a Williamson supporter, NOT A BERNIE SUPPORTER, she went to METOO and TIMESUP. She was going to elaborate. The organization refused to help her with legal fees to say anything because Biden is a candidate and it would make them violate their tax status. Allegedly. That sounds plausible to me.

Someone finally decided to give her the time of day now. And some of those people in social media support Bernie and some support Trump.

There is tons of trashing her on social media by Biden supporters. She has been called a Russian agent. She has gotten death threats.

None of this makes her story believable. Her story is just very different from all the other women's stories. And it's very different from her own story from April 2019. Back then she even said Biden didn't sexualize her. It seems like she is contradicting herself.

So Bernie has little if anything to do with this. Why even bring him up? Tara Reade's story is unbelievable because of Tara Reade. And Biden, while he seems innocent of rape, does some weirdly inappropriate crossing social boundary shit. Not rape, but still weird.

Again, nothing to do with Bernie.

 

[PyramidHead]

Loving how the credible allegations of a sexual assault victim are only acceptable at face value when they are leveraged against Bret Kavanaugh, despite having the exact same degree of evidence in both that case and this one (no witnesses, corroboration from friends and family that she told them about it at the time, her word against his). Now we've moved into the stage of tallying up the rape accusations of Biden and Trump as if the result of that exercise should be anything other than not voting for either one of their disgusting misogynist asses. Amazing how every single principle of decency wasn't actually a line in the sand but an act in a stage play, and all it took to throw all those cherished ideals to the curb was someone trying to give everybody healthcare and debt relief.

 

[repoman]

Regarding Kavanaugh, I think that abortion rights and SCOTUS was a trigger for the subconscious of people, mainly secular women --with good reason.

If the situation was reversed and Trump was less of a lech than Biden or Trump died and Chaperone Pence (another form of sexism) was prez then abortion rights would still be on peoples minds. Mental gymnastics would still have secular and low grade Christian women voting for the candidate who would have pro-choice nominees.

Abortion is such a shitty political tool. Fuck.

 

[lpetrich]

Tulsi Gabbard Finally Ended Her Increasingly Quixotic Campaign | FiveThirtyEight - it was mainly about ending military adventures in distant parts of the world. That issue never attracted much attention, however worthwhile it might be.

I found this article from late summer last year: Joe Biden and the Disastrous History of Bipartisanship - "Biden wants to bring the parties together. But for 50 years, that's meant the Right winning every time."

The Democratic presidential campaign playbook has, for decades, included grand promises to reach out to the GOP to solve the nation’s ills.

In 2020, some candidates are throwing that playbook out the window.

Like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

For Biden and his generation of Democratic lawmakers, bipartisanship has long been hailed as a worthy end in its own right, no matter the result. He has pledged that a new day will dawn once Trump is removed from the White House. “This nation cannot function without generating consensus,” Biden said in May. “You will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends.”

He has even proposed appointing a Republican Vice President.

Clinton and Obama trying to get the Republicans to support their initiatives only resulted in Republicans dragging the nation farther and farther rightward.

The newer, more strident class of Republicans who entered Congress in 1979 “had not been exposed to the demoralizing impact of Watergate, the Agnew and Nixon resignations, the Ford defeat, and maneuvering in a Congress dominated by two-to-one Democrats,” read a 1979-1980 internal report commissioned by GOP congressional leadership. “Where older members saw persistence and shrewdness, the freshmen saw timidity and indecision.” Newt Gingrich was one of them. In the 1990s, he would continue the process that Reagan began by spearheading the tactic of obstructionism by the minority.

Gingrich fancied himself “the most serious, systematic revolutionary of modern times” and called for “large-scale, radical change.” Working to polarize debate between the parties, he pioneered the threat of a government shutdown as a political strategy. He calculated that obstructionism would nurture popular contempt toward the institution of Congress, which would serve the Right’s anti-government agenda.

He came up with lists of words to for campaigners to describe the two parties with, nice-sounding ones for Republicans and nasty-sounding ones for Democrats.

Republicans like Tom DeLay came up with the strategy of pushing from the right, and with the Democrats' desperation to compromise with the Republicans, those Republicans got much of what they wanted.

 

[lpetrich]

The article then goes into Joe Biden on racial politics. Desegregation busing was a controversial civil-rights measure of the early 1970's, and Joe Biden put a lot of effort into opposing it.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton was cutting his teeth in this same punishing era. In 1980, Clinton lost his bid for reelection as governor of Arkansas after raising car license fees to fund highway repairs and trying to rein in the timber industry. The loss taught Clinton to eschew challenging corporate power and, instead, embrace what Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editorial page editor Paul Greenberg termed “the politics of ultraconsensus.”

The Clinton Administration tried rather desperately to compromise with the Republicans, and Joe Biden was involved with that effort.

In 2008, Vice President Biden found a home with “postpartisan” Obama, who, Perlstein says, “was wedded to the myths of consensus in a way that a lot of his supporters hadn’t realized at the time.”

Obama had risen to stardom with his 2004 convention speech denying the existence of a “red” and “blue” America, a feeling that suffused Democratic politics. Nary a 2008 primary debate went by without Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), for example, pledging something or other of a bipartisan nature: a “bipartisan process” to tackle Social Security, a “bipartisan way” on immigration reform, even “bipartisan diplomacy” headed by “bipartisan emissaries.”

But once president, “Republicans used Obama’s own longing for consensus and bipartisanship against him,” says Frank.

They obstructed his efforts no matter how much he tried to make deals with them. Like on Obamacare, immigration reform, and a "grand bargain" for cutting the deficit. Biden was involved with that last one, giving in to everything the Republicans demanded, but what sank that deal was the Tea Partiers' refusing to go along with that deal.

In 2010, Joe Biden made a deal with Mitch McConnell to extend unemployment insurance in exchange for extending the GWB tax cuts and cutting the estate tax. That deal was lopsided enough to make some conservative Democrats object, but JB called it “the only truly bipartisan event that occurred in the first two years of our administration,” and he claimed that Congressmembers were divided about very little, despite the Republicans' obstructionism.

 

[lpetrich]

But that has started to change.

A new generation of Democratic lawmakers is taking a combative, unflinchingly progressive approach reminiscent of the 1979 class of freshmen GOP legislators that included Gingrich.

As Ocasio-Cortez told journalist Ryan Grim, “The older members really cling to the idea that things are going to go ‘back to normal’ [after Trump]. For us, it’s never been normal, and before that, the bipartisanship was shitty anyway and gave us the War on Drugs, [the Defense of Marriage Act] and stripping the leg[islative] branch of everything.”

This new generation on the Left is doing what the Right had done some four decades earlier. In the late 1970's, New Right politicians started arriving in Congress, politicians that had not suffered through the defeats of the early to mid 1970's and that considered these defeats to be wimpiness. In an interview with NY1 in mid to late 2018(?) AOC described how she watched as Republicans define the public images of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, etc. She was determined that she was not going to let the Republicans do that to her, and she has fought back very well.

Slavery abolitionists had very little success for a long time, until the never-satisfied slaveowners ended up provoking the Civil War.

“Abolitionists and radicals were able to shift the pendulum to the left, and were able to make moderates inhabit radical ground,” says Sinha. “In the end, it wasn’t the abolitionists who abolished slavery,” Foner says. “It was more moderate people like Abraham Lincoln. But without the abolitionists, there’s no Lincoln. There’s a symbiotic relationship.”

The article's author states "The time is looking ripe for another hegemonic shift," noting the rise of a new left and increased militancy by workers - schoolteachers in red states and flight attendants in ending the 2018-19 gov't shutdown. Also increased support for such priorities of the left as Medicare for All and a Green New Deal.

 

[lpetrich]

Haunted by the Reagan era - The Washington Post - 2019 Jul 5 - "Past defeats still scare older Democratic leaders — but not the younger generation"

Leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden, though not AOC and her friends.

For newer members of the party’s caucus, the older generation’s fear of a backlash is befuddling. “Leadership is driven by fear. They seem to be unable to lead,” said Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez and a co-founder of Justice Democrats, the insurgent political organization that powered her rise, while also backing Omar and Tlaib. “I’m not sure what caused it.”

Author Ryan Grim: Ronald Reagan and his friends, taking over the White House and the Senate. This led to the Democrats acting like whipped dogs, feeling afraid to propose anything far-reaching and always wanting to please the Republicans.

For the newcomers, this is completely foreign. To them, Republicans shouldn’t be feared, they should be beaten. Ocasio-Cortez told me that she treats Republicans like buffoons because that’s how they’ve behaved for as long as she can remember. “Even before I was of voting age, I saw Republicans accuse the Obamas of doing a ‘terrorist fist bump,’ so they’ve been clowns since I was a teen,” she said.

Of the presidential candidates, only two of them have or had that kind of fearlessness: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. BS started out as a civil-rights activist in 1963, but his career in Congress has been very lonely, something he seems psychologically adapted to.

AOC's formative political experience, however, was Obama's first campaign. She phonebanked for him, and she went from Boston University to her family home in New York City in a Chinatown bus to cast her vote for him because her absentee ballot didn't arrive in time.

“A lot of us were politicized under Obama,” Varshini Prakash, a co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, which focuses on climate change, told me. “We were like, ‘We don’t need to take control of the government, because . . . there’s this benevolent figure in the government who likes us and cares about the issues we care about, or at least says he does, and all we need to do is convince him of the right course of action.’ And that proved to be untrue.”

AOC herself criticizes "saviorism", and she states that part of Obama's failure is lack of an activist movement to back him up. In fact, he let his 2008 campaign organization evaporate, and he had to build a new one for 2012.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The article then goes into Joe Biden on racial politics. Desegregation busing was a controversial civil-rights measure of the early 1970's, and Joe Biden put a lot of effort into opposing it.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton was cutting his teeth in this same punishing era. In 1980, Clinton lost his bid for reelection as governor of Arkansas after raising car license fees to fund highway repairs and trying to rein in the timber industry. The loss taught Clinton to eschew challenging corporate power and, instead, embrace what Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editorial page editor Paul Greenberg termed “the politics of ultraconsensus.”

The Clinton Administration tried rather desperately to compromise with the Republicans, and Joe Biden was involved with that effort.

In 2008, Vice President Biden found a home with “postpartisan” Obama, who, Perlstein says, “was wedded to the myths of consensus in a way that a lot of his supporters hadn’t realized at the time.”

Obama had risen to stardom with his 2004 convention speech denying the existence of a “red” and “blue” America, a feeling that suffused Democratic politics. Nary a 2008 primary debate went by without Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), for example, pledging something or other of a bipartisan nature: a “bipartisan process” to tackle Social Security, a “bipartisan way” on immigration reform, even “bipartisan diplomacy” headed by “bipartisan emissaries.”

But once president, “Republicans used Obama’s own longing for consensus and bipartisanship against him,” says Frank.

They obstructed his efforts no matter how much he tried to make deals with them. Like on Obamacare, immigration reform, and a "grand bargain" for cutting the deficit. Biden was involved with that last one, giving in to everything the Republicans demanded, but what sank that deal was the Tea Partiers' refusing to go along with that deal.

In 2010, Joe Biden made a deal with Mitch McConnell to extend unemployment insurance in exchange for extending the GWB tax cuts and cutting the estate tax. That deal was lopsided enough to make some conservative Democrats object, but JB called it “the only truly bipartisan event that occurred in the first two years of our administration,” and he claimed that Congressmembers were divided about very little, despite the Republicans' obstructionism.

Clinton learned in 1980 that a democrat can't win in Arkansas with a sizable amount of moderates and conservatives voting for him. Same goes nationwide. Republicans are more committed and have advantages (EC) over democrats. Therefore, dems to win, must have some moderates. For whatever reason, the left is just too divided. They system is not on our side. All the democrats who won the most votes (Clinton, Obama, HRC) were moderates.

Secondly, as an aside, I personally had family friends in the construction industry who greatly needed the extended unemployment benefits in 2010.

 

[lpetrich]

My last bit:

Ocasio-Cortez said she has seen how fear shapes senior members of her caucus and their approach to politics. “When it comes to defending why we don’t . . . push visionary legislation, I hear the line so frequently from senior members, ‘I want to win,’ ” she said. “But what they mean by that is, ‘I only want to introduce bills that have a 100 percent chance of passing almost unanimously.’ But for new members, what’s important isn’t just winning but fighting. I don’t care about losing in the short term, because we know we’re fighting for the long term.”

Joe Biden seems to fit very well.

How It All Came Apart for Bernie Sanders - The New York Times - "The Sanders campaign appeared on the brink of a commanding lead in the Democratic race. But a series of fateful decisions and internal divisions have left him all but vanquished."

In mid-January, BS's strategists were debating what to do about Joe Biden. Go on the attack about his vulnerabilities with black voters? Like wanting to cut Social Security and excessively punitive laws. Or stick to the message that BS has been delivering for the last 40 years? They decided on the latter -- and lost a lot of states. That included criticizing "establishment Democrats" a lot, but not JB in particular.

There was also an argument about Elizabeth Warren. A threat? Or someone to reach out to? This dispute went public when it turned up that BS allegedly told EW in 2018 that a woman could not beat President Trump.

But he has always been disdainful of the art of politics and had to be nudged into wooing even friendly Democratic leaders. As Ms. Warren relentlessly courted Ms. Ocasio-Cortez last fall, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s advisers had to prod Mr. Sanders’s aides into having him call her — a conversation that eventually led to her endorsing him.

Then some of BS's followers were very nasty to the leaders of some labor union who had rejected "Medicare for All". Then Cuba - he seemed to be too appreciative of Fidel Castro's regime for many Florida Latinos' liking, and he did not try to resolve that issue.

 

[lpetrich]

Sanders campaign was SHOCKED when field narrowed, because they really thought 30% would win it

To recap, the campaign decided early on that it wasn’t going to try and expand its support beyond its core base. “Sanders aides believe, he’ll easily win enough delegates to put him into contention at the convention. They say they don’t need him to get more than 30 percent to make that happen.” The assumption was that the field would remain fragmented.

They were shocked when some of the less successful candidates dropped out and pledged their support to Joe Biden.

In fact, AOC felt so alienated by the campaign—over both disagreements on immigration policy and the campaign’s embrace of controversial podcaster/comedian’s Joe Rogan’s endorsement, that she stepped back from more actively promoting it, leading the Sanders campaign to blame her for Sanders’ problems.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Refused To Campaign More For Bernie Sanders | HuffPost Canada

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) turned down repeated requests from Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign to appear at events promoting the Vermont senator’s candidacy in recent weeks, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

After appearing last fall and winter with him in events in various places. AOC even subbed for BS when BS was at DC for the impeachment proceedings.

Ocasio-Cortez resisted the entreaties until a few days before the primary on Feb. 12. She ultimately spoke the day before the election at a Sanders rally in Durham, New Hampshire, where the rock band The Strokes performed.

“It was like pulling teeth to get her to New Hampshire,” said a second person who knew about the discussions.

Some of BS's campaigners were not very pleased with her:

At a rally in Ames on Jan. 25, Ocasio-Cortez delivered a speech in which she failed to mention Sanders’ name ― an omission that Fox News noticed and highlighted. She also encouraged those in attendance to tip off people about the presence of immigration enforcement authorities in their communities to help undocumented immigrants evade detention.

AOC didn't show up for Jessica Cisneros either -- or Marie Newman, for that matter.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here’s THE problem that all of this layperson blather conveniently ignores: Republicans will gladly watch you die and/or outright kill you; Democrats won’t.

It has NOTHING to do with politics and everything to do with sociopathy—which is the very antithesis of government—and how that gets leveraged. So what do you do with someone that will literally put a gun to your grandmother’s head—to every grandmothers’ head—AND PULL THE TRIGGER unless you do what they want?

That’s what politics in America is really all about and nothing any blowhard that isn’t in those meetings says matters. Clinton has been in those meetings. Obama has been in those meetings. Biden has been in those meetings. AOC, Sanders? Never been in those meetings. They TALK a good game, but they have no fucking clue what is actually at stake just like none of you. You all seem to think it’s just a matter of being an “outsider” and not playing by “establishment” rules and other utterly vacuous bullshit that has zero to do with what’s actually going on.

So, look at what is actually going on right now with the Trump Virus. They are LITERALLY telling their followers to kill themselves so that they don’t have to open their wallets ffs. They’re not even trying to hide it. Bald-faced orders to kill your family; to sacrifice your lives for “the economy.”

Wake the fuck up. Politics is not a goddamned church.

 

[laughing dog]

How It All Came Apart for Bernie Sanders - The New York Times - "The Sanders campaign appeared on the brink of a commanding lead in the Democratic race. But a series of fateful decisions and internal divisions have left him all but vanquished."

In mid-January, BS's strategists were debating what to do about Joe Biden. Go on the attack about his vulnerabilities with black voters? Like wanting to cut Social Security and excessively punitive laws. Or stick to the message that BS has been delivering for the last 40 years? They decided on the latter -- and lost a lot of states. That included criticizing "establishment Democrats" a lot, but not JB in particular.

Let me get this straight - Sanders' message which included criticizing "establishment Democrats" lost him a lot of states.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

How It All Came Apart for Bernie Sanders - The New York Times - "The Sanders campaign appeared on the brink of a commanding lead in the Democratic race. But a series of fateful decisions and internal divisions have left him all but vanquished."

In mid-January, BS's strategists were debating what to do about Joe Biden. Go on the attack about his vulnerabilities with black voters? Like wanting to cut Social Security and excessively punitive laws. Or stick to the message that BS has been delivering for the last 40 years? They decided on the latter -- and lost a lot of states. That included criticizing "establishment Democrats" a lot, but not JB in particular.

Let me get this straight - Sanders' message which included criticizing "establishment Democrats" lost him a lot of states.

It's almost as if Democrats don't like being condescended to by a fraud who keeps glomming onto the Democratic party and then shitting on it over and over again.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 'breaks' with Bernie because she can do math, and 30% doesn't win anything
BS doesn't seem willing to cooperate with other politicians very much, but AOC is.

Progressive Ideas Remain Popular. Progressive Presidential Candidates Are Losing. Why? - The New York Times - "In state after state, voters say they support liberal policies like single-payer health care, canceling student debt and the Green New Deal. But many are voting for Joe Biden, who has proposed largely moderate ideas."

Matt Morrison, executive director of the labor organization Working America, said left-wing Democrats told themselves a faulty story — that winning the policy argument was the foremost way to build a political coalition. But doing so also requires building trust with voters, he said, because most Americans “look and ask, ‘Are they going to win over voters that aren’t like me or don’t care about politics?’”

“The self-branded progressive wing has to go beyond just the policy that fits the needs of the community,” he added. “Voters see that clearly. They’re making judgments about the whole person.”

Joe Biden has been moving leftward, adopting some of Bernie Sanders's and Elizabeth Warren's policy proposals, like free tuition at some public colleges.

After months of mocking Mr. Biden as a feckless front-runner, they acknowledge he managed to make the most important argument to Democrats: that his perceived ability to beat Mr. Trump should be valued over any policy in particular.

...
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez argued that Mr. Biden’s “electability” framework had dominated voters’ thoughts and press coverage, creating difficulties for both the female candidates in the primary race and the insurgent progressives.

“It wasn’t just ‘Can a woman win?’ but ‘Can a woman win against Trump in Wisconsin, and Michigan, and Pennsylvania,’” she said. “There was also the electability of the progressive movement. ‘Can single-payer health care win? I want it! But can it win?’

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

WE ALREADY HAVE “FREE” TUITION. Fucking hell.



Every single person in America that cannot afford to attend public college (which is what all of this is about; it ain’t “free” Harvard), has been able to do so—almost exclusively because of Democrats, particularly in their respective State legislatures—due to taxpayer subsidies of some kind.

Pell Grants, for a prominent example, were effectively created in 1965 by Democratic Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island under Lyndon B. Johnson and expanded significantly in 1978 by Jimmy Carter.

The problem has been certain State legislatures allowing their public colleges to increase their tuition and dumping their State responsbility to subsidize onto the Federal government more and more. It’s a problem with Republicans in State legislatures, NOT a failure of any kind in regard to the Federal government.

Regardless, NO such proposal is moving anyone “further left.” That is a vacuous, bullshit bumper sticker slogan created primarily by the Sanders camp that stupid people on the left keep regurgitating.

Literally NOTHING Sanders has proposed is any “further left” than what the Democrats have been proposing—in one form or another—for at least half a century. Not one fucking thing.

In regard to “free” public college tuition, Sanders EVEN STATED IT WASN’T ANYTHING NEW.

Saying anyone in the current or recent political arena is or has moved anyone “further left” is as vapid as anything Trump tries to get away with, so why the fuck are any of you repeating it?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

WE ALREADY HAVE “FREE” TUITION. Fucking hell.



Every single person in America that cannot afford to attend public college (which is what all of this is about; it ain’t “free” Harvard), has been able to do so—almost exclusively because of Democrats, particularly in their respective State legislatures—due to taxpayer subsidies of some kind.

Pell Grants, for a prominent example, were effectively created in 1965 by Democratic Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island under Lyndon B. Johnson and expanded significantly in 1978 by Jimmy Carter.

The problem has been certain State legislatures allowing their public colleges to increase their tuition and dumping their State responsbility to subsidize onto the Federal government more and more. It’s a problem with Republicans in State legislatures, NOT a failure of any kind in regard to the Federal government.

Regardless, NO such proposal is moving anyone “further left.” That is a vacuous, bullshit bumper sticker slogan created primarily by the Sanders camp that stupid people on the left keep regurgitating.

Literally NOTHING Sanders has proposed is any “further left” than what the Democrats have been proposing—in one form or another—for at least half a century. Not one fucking thing.

In regard to “free” public college tuition, Sanders EVEN STATED IT WASN’T ANYTHING NEW.

Saying anyone in the current or recent political arena is or has moved anyone “further left” is as vapid as anything Trump tries to get away with, so why the fuck are any of you repeating it?

No this isn't true.

They give financial aid based on their ASSESSMENT of MERIT and NEED. If you have a rich father who disowns you, you might be in a situation where you can't prove it and so then are shite out of luck because his income is counted in their assessment. If on the other hand, college were simply free that is completely different. Likewise, if they think your parents should mortgage their house, that is also different for middle class persons. Likewise, poor people who have to take out loans is different too. Free college is way better than all these sucky situations.

 

[TV and credit cards]

WE ALREADY HAVE “FREE” TUITION. Fucking hell.



Every single person in America that cannot afford to attend public college (which is what all of this is about; it ain’t “free” Harvard), has been able to do so—almost exclusively because of Democrats, particularly in their respective State legislatures—due to taxpayer subsidies of some kind.

Pell Grants, for a prominent example, were effectively created in 1965 by Democratic Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island under Lyndon B. Johnson and expanded significantly in 1978 by Jimmy Carter.

The problem has been certain State legislatures allowing their public colleges to increase their tuition and dumping their State responsbility to subsidize onto the Federal government more and more. It’s a problem with Republicans in State legislatures, NOT a failure of any kind in regard to the Federal government.

Regardless, NO such proposal is moving anyone “further left.” That is a vacuous, bullshit bumper sticker slogan created primarily by the Sanders camp that stupid people on the left keep regurgitating.

Literally NOTHING Sanders has proposed is any “further left” than what the Democrats have been proposing—in one form or another—for at least half a century. Not one fucking thing.

In regard to “free” public college tuition, Sanders EVEN STATED IT WASN’T ANYTHING NEW.

Saying anyone in the current or recent political arena is or has moved anyone “further left” is as vapid as anything Trump tries to get away with, so why the fuck are any of you repeating it?

There’s always the GI Bill. Last I checked it was up to the highest state university cost, a housing allowance, and a grand a year for books.
Having 22-24 year olds instead of 18 year olds starting college may raise the maturity level and lower the drop out rate.
Pacifists could be given the option of serving in the Peace Corp or similar organization.
I know these options suck for many who do not want to put actual skin in the game. Why else would we have unemployed/underemployed college graduates who will not be able to pay off their college loans for decades to come. Surely they knew a four year commitment in the military was an option.
I liken this to charitable giving. It’s easy to sit on your ass and donate money. It takes character to get up off your ass and commit your time.

 

[ZiprHead]

Poll: 15% of Sanders supporters will vote for Trump if Biden is nominee; 80% would back Biden

Idjits.