Democrats 2020

[PyramidHead]

Families are rigid top down dictatorships, or biumverates at best.

Not mine. We negotiate everything. We are obligated to follow the law, but nobody here rules anyone else. It's always been that way since I've been parenting. That you see family structures the way you do is telling.

More important than who sets the rules is who makes and who takes, as that's where you find the class structure. In many households, women do enough work for themselves, but also do extra for everybody else (they don't just cook their own meals or fold their own laundry, in other words) and the "surplus" they make is what the rest of the family uses to survive. She lives on the premises where she works, and the arrangement is justified because of a special bond she has entered with the man. Sound familiar? The stay-at-home mom household is basically feudalism. The woman, who is a serf, works the "land" of her dwelling, making enough for herself pretty quickly and then shifting gears to make a surplus for everyone else, which is taken up and distributed by the man, the lord. She doesn't have the ability to quit the house and work someplace else without subjecting herself to severe social and financial consequences, as the original arrangement was legally and spiritually initiated; the only thing missing was the lord tapping each shoulder with the flat end of a sword as she swears fealty to him.

In Soviet Russia, they actually tried to disrupt this class structure in the household, but they didn't do it by democratizing the family. They did it by nationalizing housework. The Soviet Union had some of the best state-run day care centers and laundry services the world had ever seen, and having been released from the "land" where they normally spent all their time, women joined the factory floors and shops. This was reversed when Stalin came into power.

 

[untermensche]

The parent child relationship is a relationship where one party is a child. And it is only a moral relationship if the parent acts in the best interests of the child. It would be an immoral relationship if the parent were profiting off the labor of the child or exploiting the child for personal gain.

The employer/employee relationship is a relationship where one party is an employee. And it is only a moral relationship if the employer acts in the best interests of the employee.

Funny thing is, that over the long term, within a democratic system, heeding the needs of a the employee is not only a moral requirement, but a financial one as well. Have you never hired anyone?

Stealing the fruits of labor is not looking after an employee.

The dictator/servant relationship in capitalism exists to serve the dictator.

It is not in any way looking after the servant.

It is a way to exploit the servant and steal from them.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/us/jay-inslee-washington-2020-.html

SEATTLE — Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington and former member of Congress who has made climate change and the environment his signature issues, jumped into the crowded field of 2020 Democratic contenders for president on Friday.

Mr. Inslee, 68, has led the state during a powerful economic expansion since taking office as governor in 2013, especially in the Seattle area. Amazon and other tech companies have hired tens of thousands of workers, and export-driven manufacturers like Boeing have boomed.

But he has had mixed success in getting some of his ideas put into practice, especially those on renewable, low-carbon energy. He failed twice with voters, and once in the Legislature, to enact the nation’s first carbon tax, aimed at reducing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Many residents, elected officials and business leaders balked, concerned that energy costs would rise.

In a video announcing his campaign Friday, Mr. Inslee made climate change central to his message as a candidate.

Who wants to predict how many more candidates will enter the race?

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/hickenlooper-president-colorado.html

John Hickenlooper, the two-time Colorado governor and former brewpub owner who has overseen Colorado’s remarkable economic expansion, declared his candidacy for president on Monday.

Mr. Hickenlooper, 67, a socially progressive, pro-business Democrat who has called himself an “extreme moderate,” had long said he was considering a run, and made early visits to Iowa and New Hampshire. His biggest challenge will be distinguishing himself in what is sure to be a packed field of potentially history-making candidates and deep-pocketed household names.

“I’m running for president because we need dreamers in Washington, but we also need to get things done,” he said in a video announcing his candidacy, with the Rocky Mountains as his backdrop. “I’ve proven again and again I can bring people together to produce the progressive change Washington has failed to deliver.”

 

[Opoponax]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/us/jay-inslee-washington-2020-.html

SEATTLE — Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington and former member of Congress who has made climate change and the environment his signature issues, jumped into the crowded field of 2020 Democratic contenders for president on Friday.

Mr. Inslee, 68, has led the state during a powerful economic expansion since taking office as governor in 2013, especially in the Seattle area. Amazon and other tech companies have hired tens of thousands of workers, and export-driven manufacturers like Boeing have boomed.

But he has had mixed success in getting some of his ideas put into practice, especially those on renewable, low-carbon energy. He failed twice with voters, and once in the Legislature, to enact the nation’s first carbon tax, aimed at reducing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Many residents, elected officials and business leaders balked, concerned that energy costs would rise.

In a video announcing his campaign Friday, Mr. Inslee made climate change central to his message as a candidate.

Who wants to predict how many more candidates will enter the race?

It won't really matter. Unless some health issues arise, it looks like Bernie is going to cut a wide swath through the rest of the field. All the people who wanted him in 2016 still want him, and everyone who voted for Hillary will be glad to cast their vote for Bernie. Everyone else coming after his declaration will be in parentheses in a footnote (if they're lucky).

I have serious questions about his age, but a smart VP pick could assuage those concerns.

 

[lpetrich]

 2020 United States presidential election, Presidential candidates, 2020 - Ballotpedia, 2020 presidential election: Track which candidates are running - Axios

Currently, 12 candidates are officially in the race on the Democratic side: Cory Booker, Julian Castro, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang.

Two Democratic candidates are in the exploratory-committee stage: Pete Buttigieg, Kirsten Gillibrand.

Two Republicans are now officially declared: Donald Trump, who announced his candidacy less than a month after his inauguration, and Bill Weld, former governor of Massachusetts and Libertarian Party candidate.

There are numerous possible candidates, ranging from Joe Biden and Beto O'Rourke to Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/us/jay-inslee-washington-2020-.html

SEATTLE — Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington and former member of Congress who has made climate change and the environment his signature issues, jumped into the crowded field of 2020 Democratic contenders for president on Friday.

Mr. Inslee, 68, has led the state during a powerful economic expansion since taking office as governor in 2013, especially in the Seattle area. Amazon and other tech companies have hired tens of thousands of workers, and export-driven manufacturers like Boeing have boomed.

But he has had mixed success in getting some of his ideas put into practice, especially those on renewable, low-carbon energy. He failed twice with voters, and once in the Legislature, to enact the nation’s first carbon tax, aimed at reducing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Many residents, elected officials and business leaders balked, concerned that energy costs would rise.

In a video announcing his campaign Friday, Mr. Inslee made climate change central to his message as a candidate.

Who wants to predict how many more candidates will enter the race?

It won't really matter. Unless some health issues arise, it looks like Bernie is going to cut a wide swath through the rest of the field. All the people who wanted him in 2016 still want him, and everyone who voted for Hillary will be glad to cast their vote for Bernie. Everyone else coming after his declaration will be in parentheses in a footnote (if they're lucky).

I have serious questions about his age, but a smart VP pick could assuage those concerns.

Well, I have very serious issues about his competency, so I'm not convinced that he's the answer to our problems. I don't know who I will vote for in the primaries but I know it won't be Bernie. I worry that if the fake Democrat Bernie becomes the candidate, we will lose the election, due to the loss of swing voters as well as some moderate Democrats, who might vote third party. I know quite a few people who were hard core Bernie supporters in 2016 who voted third party. What makes you think the opposite thing won't happen if Bernie does become the candidate? I honestly don't know if I could vote for the man, and I've never felt that way before about any Democratic candidate. But, Bernie isn't a Democrat except when it's convenient.

Right now, sadly, 41% of people say they will positively or probably vote for Trump. What makes you think that the other 59% would be willing to vote for Bernie? What makes you think that Bernie could win back states that Clinton lost? I honestly don't see that as probable. Bernie will easily win in the bluest states, but I doubt he can win in the swing states of in the states like Georgia, which are gradually turning blue.

And, to be honest, I think it's way too early to be predicting who will win the Democratic primary elections. So, we will have plenty of time to argue about this.

 

[PyramidHead]

It won't really matter. Unless some health issues arise, it looks like Bernie is going to cut a wide swath through the rest of the field. All the people who wanted him in 2016 still want him, and everyone who voted for Hillary will be glad to cast their vote for Bernie. Everyone else coming after his declaration will be in parentheses in a footnote (if they're lucky).

I have serious questions about his age, but a smart VP pick could assuage those concerns.

Well, I have very serious issues about his competency, so I'm not convinced that he's the answer to our problems. I don't know who I will vote for in the primaries but I know it won't be Bernie. I worry that if the fake Democrat Bernie becomes the candidate, we will lose the election, due to the loss of swing voters as well as some moderate Democrats, who might vote third party. I know quite a few people who were hard core Bernie supporters in 2016 who voted third party. What makes you think the opposite thing won't happen if Bernie does become the candidate? I honestly don't know if I could vote for the man, and I've never felt that way before about any Democratic candidate. But, Bernie isn't a Democrat except when it's convenient.

Right now, sadly, 41% of people say they will positively or probably vote for Trump. What makes you think that the other 59% would be willing to vote for Bernie? What makes you think that Bernie could win back states that Clinton lost? I honestly don't see that as probable. Bernie will easily win in the bluest states, but I doubt he can win in the swing states of in the states like Georgia, which are gradually turning blue.

And, to be honest, I think it's way too early to be predicting who will win the Democratic primary elections. So, we will have plenty of time to argue about this.

It's sad because it's true:

Liberals hate socialism more than fascism

 

[Derec]

It won't really matter. Unless some health issues arise, it looks like Bernie is going to cut a wide swath through the rest of the field.

I don't think so. Sure, it's a busy field, so you don't need anything approaching 50% support to win states, but that applies to everybody. Therefore I think the primaries are very unpredictable still. And Sanders faces some challenges. His age for one, he is almost 80 years old, even older than Biden. Second, he has competition in the outside left lane from the likes of Warren this time around. She is also from the Northeast, and so she will eat into his support especially in the crucial New Hampshire primary. Of course, if Warren drops out before then, that obstacle would be out of the way. There still is the problem of very early California primaries that favor Kamala Harris. On the other hand, he is good at rasining money and California is an expensive media market, so he could win the "best of the rest" in California which would help him. But I very much doubt he will "cut a wide swath" through this field. I do not think any of the candidates will until Super Tuesday is over.

All the people who wanted him in 2016 still want him, and everyone who voted for Hillary will be glad to cast their vote for Bernie. Everyone else coming after his declaration will be in parentheses in a footnote (if they're lucky).

I think the Hillary fans are still upset at him from 2016. And I think he will lose some support from 2016 to other candidates like Warren or simply lose some support because he is four years older and no longer the new shiny thing on the campaign trail.

I have serious questions about his age, but a smart VP pick could assuage those concerns.

And that choice is not made until the convention, which means it will play no role in the primaries.

 

[Terrell]

TBH I think that at least some of those candidates will be gone before the first or second debate. By the time the vote is in for the Iowa Caucus it wouldn't surprise me if there are only 3 or 4 candidates with realistic chances of winning the primary.

 

[Derec]

TBH I think that at least some of those candidates will be gone before the first or second debate. By the time the vote is in for the Iowa Caucus it wouldn't surprise me if there are only 3 or 4 candidates with realistic chances of winning the primary.

While some candidates will certainly see the handwriting on the wall and give up early, I do not think it will be that extensive. Look at 2016 Republicans. Sure, 5 gave up before Iowa, but that left 11 in at least through Iowa. Sure, the field was whittled down to three after Rubio gave up after Super Tuesday II on March 15 when he failed to secure the win in his home state.
Note that Democrats could sustain a bigger field longer because of proportional nature of all primaries, as opposed to a number of winner take all primaries Republicans have.
Trump was able to get all of Florida's delegates with 46% of the vote for example.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think some candidates will drop out once they realize that they can't raise enough money to stay viable. I've already unsubscribed to several candidates who keep begging me for money.

Nobody has mentioned that both Hillary and Bloomberg have officially announced that they won't be running, but both will be very engaged in the race.

This morning I heard on MSNBC, that Beto has been working with a potential campaign manager but he has declined to comment. I think it's obvious that he's planning on running.

 

[Derec]

I think some candidates will drop out once they realize that they can't raise enough money to stay viable. I've already unsubscribed to several candidates who keep begging me for money.

In a field as big as this one, some may if they see no money coming in and no support developing, I can definitely see a number of people dropping out. It will still remain a relatively crowded field (by which I mean 4-7 viable candidates) at least through Super Tuesday.
It's easier for marginal candidates to raise some funds these days, as they can use the internet and social media to raise funds directly (as you have experienced yourself) rather than appealing to major bundles who quickly drop campaigns that appear non-viable.
So more candidates will be able to go longer than in previous races. I think it is a distinct possibility that four, or at least three, different candidates will win Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada primaries. If that happens, Super Tuesday will be extra interesting and the fight might go all the way to convention, especially since superdelegates cannot vote on the first ballot any more.

Nobody has mentioned that both Hillary and Bloomberg have officially announced that they won't be running, but both will be very engaged in the race.

I think Kamala is Hilalry's girl, but who will Bloomberg support?

This morning I heard on MSNBC, that Beto has been working with a potential campaign manager but he has declined to comment. I think it's obvious that he's planning on running.

I think that boy is delusional. β is a failed Senate candidate and a former congressman from a very safe district. What is he bringing to the table at this point other than his RFKesque looks? And even with that, he should be careful. Isn't Sirhan² up for parole in a couple of years?

Same with Stacey Abrams. Some people are talking about her running. She is a failed gubernatorial candidate who has so far only been in state legislature. Maybe set your sights a bit lower for now, like House (difficult since I believe she lives in the 5th district and John Lewis is not retiring) or perhaps Senate. We have an election in 2020 with David Perdue as incumbent.

 

[Terrell]

TBH I think that at least some of those candidates will be gone before the first or second debate. By the time the vote is in for the Iowa Caucus it wouldn't surprise me if there are only 3 or 4 candidates with realistic chances of winning the primary.

While some candidates will certainly see the handwriting on the wall and give up early, I do not think it will be that extensive. Look at 2016 Republicans. Sure, 5 gave up before Iowa, but that left 11 in at least through Iowa. Sure, the field was whittled down to three after Rubio gave up after Super Tuesday II on March 15 when he failed to secure the win in his home state.
Note that Democrats could sustain a bigger field longer because of proportional nature of all primaries, as opposed to a number of winner take all primaries Republicans have.
Trump was able to get all of Florida's delegates with 46% of the vote for example.

I don't think we're too far apart on this; I just think the drop out rate will be more extensive than you. I think that some will fail to meet the minimum requirements to participate in the debate. I think that will whittle down the field quite a bit before the first debate even happens.

The Democratic National Committee on Thursday released the threshold that 2020 presidential candidates will need to meet in order to qualify for its first two primary debates.
A candidate will either need to register at least 1 percent in three different polls in 2019, 14 days prior to the debate or raise money from at least 65,000 unique donors, having a minimum of 200 contributors in each of at least 20 states. The two measures will be combined in the event that more than 20 candidates qualify, but the fundraising measure is a component that's never been used before.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run/articles/2019-02-14/dnc-releases-candidate-thresholds-for-first-two-debates

I think that will knock out a few candidates who are in denial about their chances.

At the debates there'll probably be at least one or two candidates that will blow it for themselves. Someone will probably have a Gary Johnson (even those his was an interview) or Rick Perry moment. Toast. Others will likely also have their funding curtailed if not dried up due to underperformance in the debates. I think we should watch candidates positions on the stage & how they move between debates. Towards the center = good, towards the edges = bad. I think their donations will follow that movement.

Iowa results: I don't think that more than 3 candidates will be within 5-8% or so of the total vote from the winner. Those who aren't are probably done at that point.

At that point I don't think we have more than 3 or 4 realistic candidates remaining. I think 5 is a long shot. I could be wrong, but that's how I think it will play out.

Edit: I wouldn't be surprised if that 1% requirement gets raised.

 

[Copernicus]

It won't really matter. Unless some health issues arise, it looks like Bernie is going to cut a wide swath through the rest of the field. All the people who wanted him in 2016 still want him, and everyone who voted for Hillary will be glad to cast their vote for Bernie. Everyone else coming after his declaration will be in parentheses in a footnote (if they're lucky).

I have serious questions about his age, but a smart VP pick could assuage those concerns.

Well, I have very serious issues about his competency, so I'm not convinced that he's the answer to our problems. I don't know who I will vote for in the primaries but I know it won't be Bernie. I worry that if the fake Democrat Bernie becomes the candidate, we will lose the election, due to the loss of swing voters as well as some moderate Democrats, who might vote third party. I know quite a few people who were hard core Bernie supporters in 2016 who voted third party. What makes you think the opposite thing won't happen if Bernie does become the candidate? I honestly don't know if I could vote for the man, and I've never felt that way before about any Democratic candidate. But, Bernie isn't a Democrat except when it's convenient.

Right now, sadly, 41% of people say they will positively or probably vote for Trump. What makes you think that the other 59% would be willing to vote for Bernie? What makes you think that Bernie could win back states that Clinton lost? I honestly don't see that as probable. Bernie will easily win in the bluest states, but I doubt he can win in the swing states of in the states like Georgia, which are gradually turning blue.

And, to be honest, I think it's way too early to be predicting who will win the Democratic primary elections. So, we will have plenty of time to argue about this.

It's sad because it's true:

Liberals hate socialism more than fascism

That's just patently absurd. Most liberals see nothing at all wrong with Democrats who claim to be "socialists", but there are a great many Democrats who think that it is plain stupid to self-identify with that label. It would be just as stupid for a Republican to go around proudly claiming to be a fascist, but--you know--a kind of benevolent fascist who believes in a national healthcare system and insists that fascism has been totally misunderstood. The stigma associated with those labels is not going to be a net plus in any election anywhere. They just won't chase away voters who aren't scared away by the labels. The best one can hope for is that a bunch of voters who weren't previously scared away will suddenly begin seeing the labels in a new light.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's sad because it's true:

Liberals hate socialism more than fascism

That's just patently absurd. Most liberals see nothing at all wrong with Democrats who claim to be "socialists", but there are a great many Democrats who think that it is plain stupid to self-identify with that label. It would be just as stupid for a Republican to go around proudly claiming to be a fascist, but--you know--a kind of benevolent fascist who believes in a national healthcare system and insists that fascism has been totally misunderstood. The stigma associated with those labels is not going to be a net plus in any election anywhere. They just won't chase away voters who aren't scared away by the labels. The best one can hope for is that a bunch of voters who weren't previously scared away will suddenly begin seeing the labels in a new light.

The majority of Democratic voters now view socialism more favorably than capitalism, though I imagine they aren't all using the same definition of either one. But as a word, it's not as dirty anymore, and certainly nowhere near as dirty as fascism, which is a ridiculous comparison to make.

In any case, my only gripe was with people who say that between Bernie Sanders and not voting at all (which is equal to voting for Trump), they might sit this one out if Bernie is the nominee. I can only conclude that such people don't actually have any principled objection to Trump's brand of fascism.

 

[Copernicus]

It's sad because it's true:

Liberals hate socialism more than fascism

That's just patently absurd. Most liberals see nothing at all wrong with Democrats who claim to be "socialists", but there are a great many Democrats who think that it is plain stupid to self-identify with that label. It would be just as stupid for a Republican to go around proudly claiming to be a fascist, but--you know--a kind of benevolent fascist who believes in a national healthcare system and insists that fascism has been totally misunderstood. The stigma associated with those labels is not going to be a net plus in any election anywhere. They just won't chase away voters who aren't scared away by the labels. The best one can hope for is that a bunch of voters who weren't previously scared away will suddenly begin seeing the labels in a new light.

The majority of Democratic voters now view socialism more favorably than capitalism, though I imagine they aren't all using the same definition of either one. But as a word, it's not as dirty anymore, and certainly nowhere near as dirty as fascism, which is a ridiculous comparison to make.

In any case, my only gripe was with people who say that between Bernie Sanders and not voting at all (which is equal to voting for Trump), they might sit this one out if Bernie is the nominee. I can only conclude that such people don't actually have any principled objection to Trump's brand of fascism.

Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately, we don't have democratic presidential elections in the US. The electoral college system was designed to prevent that, and it has certainly succeeded in undermining democracy. That historical effect goes back to the election of Thomas Jefferson, who won his election precisely because the popular vote was skewed by the electoral system. So that means that a citizen's decision to cast a vote is not just about a choice between the two major candidates. It is also about whether the voter thinks his or her vote has a chance of affecting the outcome.

In the case of Bernie Sanders, who is a very divisive candidate for many Democrats, there is enough residual anger that some Democrats are bound to stay home in states where our winner-take-all system virtually excludes the possibility that Democratic votes will matter. I confess that I do still feel some of that resentment and anger towards Sanders, but I would still vote for him if I lived in a state where I thought he had no chance of winning. And that would hold true even if Trump were not the opposing candidate. I simply can't imagine voting for anyone who would favor Republican policies and political appointments. So I would vote just to send a message of protest against Republicans, and I would even vote for a candidate like Bernie Sanders, whom I don't particularly like. However, I understand why some Democrats might choose to stay home. That just wouldn't be how I would behave.

Bear in mind that I am taking a stand that is similar to the one the Sanders took after Hillary Clinton won the nomination--that he would campaign and vote for Hillary, but that what his supporters chose to do was up to their personal calculus.

 

[southernhybrid]

It's sad because it's true:

Liberals hate socialism more than fascism

That's just patently absurd. Most liberals see nothing at all wrong with Democrats who claim to be "socialists", but there are a great many Democrats who think that it is plain stupid to self-identify with that label. It would be just as stupid for a Republican to go around proudly claiming to be a fascist, but--you know--a kind of benevolent fascist who believes in a national healthcare system and insists that fascism has been totally misunderstood. The stigma associated with those labels is not going to be a net plus in any election anywhere. They just won't chase away voters who aren't scared away by the labels. The best one can hope for is that a bunch of voters who weren't previously scared away will suddenly begin seeing the labels in a new light.

The majority of Democratic voters now view socialism more favorably than capitalism, though I imagine they aren't all using the same definition of either one. But as a word, it's not as dirty anymore, and certainly nowhere near as dirty as fascism, which is a ridiculous comparison to make.

In any case, my only gripe was with people who say that between Bernie Sanders and not voting at all (which is equal to voting for Trump), they might sit this one out if Bernie is the nominee. I can only conclude that such people don't actually have any principled objection to Trump's brand of fascism.

It's not going to matter in Georgia, as Georgia will never go for Bernie. It's funny that you say that because I know plenty of Democrats that voted third party because they didn't like Hilary. They didn't like her for no apparent reason. I think Bernie is almost as dangerous as Trump, so it's not because I don't like him personally. I think he has no idea what he's talking about, has never described how he will accomplish his goals and comes across as someone who doesn't compromise. And, have you ever studied the impact of pure socialism? It has always ended up leading to totalitarianism, which I don't think is any better than fascism. They are both awful. I want someone who believes in a mixed economy. I've read a lot about Bernie's past. He once supported dictators in socialist or communist countries. He accomplished very little while in Congress. I just don't see him as being a good option. And, btw, I considered my myself a socialist when I was in my teens, but as I learned more, I came to realize that it's never worked out well.

Now if you're talking about democratic socialism mixed with well regulated capitalism, I'm on board. There are plenty of good candidates that support that and realize that extremism never works. I support UHC, vastly improved infrastructure and some changes in our tax structure, etc. In no way am I a fascist or a socialist. The term has been very misunderstood as it traditionally means the government controls the means of production. That has always lead to autocracy. You can't change human nature. Socialism only works out well in small hunter gatherer type societies, where people know and care for each other and are willing to share most things equally.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's just not worth it, we can agree to disagree.

 

[southernhybrid]

It's just not worth it, we can agree to disagree.

Okay, if that's what you want. You think my words sound kooky and I think that the ideology that you seem to be promoting is very harmful.

If you ever can give us some data as to how and where pure socialism has ever worked out well, I will listen. I've read many of your lengthy posts. I've never known a single country where it worked out well. We'd be better off following the Swedish model. Corporations in Sweden have always paid less taxes than they do in the US, and the wealthy, from what I've read recently, often pay a lower rate of taxes than the average person, yet the people are generally happier than Americans and they enjoy a much more reliable safety net. I'll take that system over any place that has ever tried to incorporate pure socialism. I'm sorry if you don't want to discuss that. The US is different than Sweden, so we do need more progressive taxation than there is in Sweden, but parts of the Swedish model could benefit us. That assumes that what I've read is fairly correct information.

I don't get my feelings hurt by people who have different opinions from my own. It would be a great positive if we could all agree to disagree without hard feelings, wouldn't it?