Democrats 2020

[angelo]

Clueless? Realistic is more like it. Whether you like it or not, as I keep saying, there's no such thing as a free lunch, someone always pays!

https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-spending/

Actually you keep shifting the goalposts so much I think we are playing water polo.

angelo: No such thing as a free lunch!
Others: Of course. Such as health care, our premiums would shift to pay for a regionalized or national system.
angelo: But rich people won’t work harder if half their money is taxed. #aocisameanie
Others: Yes they would. Even if that was the effective rate, people would still keep half, which they can do with as they wanted.
angelo: But what you keep ignoring is that there isn’t a free lunch.
Others: *self inflicted gun shot to head after 100th loop of this shit*

Yea, yea. Whatever! I give up. There is such a thing as free lunches for everyone if only governments planted millions of money trees, in fact everyone who has gardens should be made to plant at least 2.

 

[PyramidHead]

Yes, those far-left Democrats who keep attracting... *checks notes* PAC funding from the Koch brothers

Koch network opens its doors to Democrats as it expands political engagement

The move to open its doors to Democrats comes after recent disagreements with lawmakers and Trump on how they’ve handled the immigration status of Dreamers — immigrants brought into the country as children. The two sides have also disagreed on trade policy, with Trump remaining firm on tariffs that have been implemented on goods coming from China.

For those candidates receiving the group’s help in 2019 and 2020, they will get the reinforcement of four new political action committees based on the issues they’ve been actively engaging on. The letter shows the four PACs will be called “Economic Opportunity,” “Uniting for Free Expression,” “Uniting for Free Trade” and “Uniting for Immigration Reform.” They’re designed to contribute to candidates who follow their desired policy initiatives.

The “Economic Opportunity” PAC, for instance, will finance campaigns that support removing business regulations, while the “Uniting for Free Trade” PAC will spend on candidates who are vocal about the negative effect tariffs are having on U.S. consumers.

 

[PyramidHead]

Inslee says DNC rejected his call for climate debate

"Today, my team received a call from the Democratic National Committee letting us know that they will not host a climate debate," Inslee wrote. "Further, they explained that if we participated in anyone else's climate debate, we will not be invited to future debates."

What is there to debate. Sen. Harris are you for increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Right now most candidates are treating climate change as an opportunity to win votes, and not an existential threat to the world that needs to be tackled on a larger timescale than their electoral prospects. Hence Biden saying that he wants to pursue a "middle ground" on climate change legislation, as if now is the time for bipartisanship when every subsequent scientific finding shortens our window of action to make the future livable for our descendants.

...

Like what good is having a non-"ruined" economy (whatever that means) if nobody is around to participate in it. The entire reason we are in this mess is because of the economy, and because of putting it on a pedestal that everything else has to rearrange itself around. The possibility that cutting CO2 to a sustainable level and keeping it there may be fundamentally incompatible with how our economy is currently organized is apparently too hideous to contemplate. In a contest between free markets with mass extinction and a planned economy with a livable climate, neoliberals will never choose a livable climate. That's why we need a debate.

 

[ZiprHead]

Things like joke about pubic hair on coke cans? Is that really something that should derail somebody's career?


He rented a porn tape in the 80s? Obviously unsuited for SCOTUS then.

His ex also confirmed he was basically a dirty old man

Old man? When he and Ambush got divorced, he was 36. Hardly "old". You do know he wasn't 70 years old all his life, right?

that talked her into group sex.

Even if this were true (exes tend to lie), what is the relevance? Nothing illegal about group sex. And "talking somebody into" is persuading somebody. It is qualitatively distinct from things like coercion.

I can imagine a woman getting quite offended by such a man continually trying to persuade her to go out with him.

I can imagine that she'd be mildly offended. Not offended enough to not follow him to a new position he took, however. But offended enough when she saw the opportunity to derail a SCOTUS nomination for the opposing party. Hill is a Democrat.

Crime was the biggest issue on the minds of the US at the time, by far. I'll give Joe a pass on this one.

While crime stats are better, there is still a lot of violent crime in the US. And black Americans are the ones affected by that more than other groups. Look at murder rates for example.

We can acknowledge the real problem with violent crime (and its glorification in the hip hop culture, see Tay K or YNW Melly whose "music" skyrocketed in popularity after their murder arrests) while also taking into account that many things that are criminalized should not be, or should be to a far lesser extent. Saying we should not jail people for pot possession or sex work should not be linked to the proposition that we should go light on armed robbers and murderers.

Thomas is a pig and he committed perjury. He probably wanks under his robes at the thought of getting away with it.

And I'll let your last paragraph again displaying your bigotry slide.

 

[Derec]

Looks like the loonies are pushing the DNC so far to the left that it'll be Trump for 12 more years.

I agree tat in general Dems are in danger of moving too far to the left. But on the issue of Hyde, i think it's horrible policy of denying poor women (who are least able to afford caring for a child) access to abortion through Medicaid.

My issue with Biden and Hyde is the flip flops. First he says he opposes it. Then his campaign says he misunderstood the question and that he supports Hyde. Now he comes out opposing it again. Not a good look.

 

[Derec]

Thomas is a pig and he committed perjury.

[citation needed]

He probably wanks under his robes at the thought of getting away with it.

Why do you think that? Other than bigotry.

And I'll let your last paragraph again displaying your bigotry slide.

No bigotry on my part. On the other hand, your insinuation that a black man can't control his sexuality and is masturbating on the job.

Pointing out violent crime statistics (which is why the crime bill was popular among black politicians and voters at the time) or that hip hop glorifies violence is NOT bigotry.

 

[Derec]

Right now most candidates are treating climate change as an opportunity to win votes, and not an existential threat to the world that needs to be tackled on a larger timescale than their electoral prospects. Hence Biden saying that he wants to pursue a "middle ground" on climate change legislation, as if now is the time for bipartisanship when every subsequent scientific finding shortens our window of action to make the future livable for our descendants.

Politics is the art of the possible. Not of idealism.

Then you have stuff like this, straight from the smoothest brains on the internet or elsewhere:

You are selling yourself short. Your cerebrum is as smooth as a squirrel's...

Like what good is having a non-"ruined" economy (whatever that means)

Ask the people of Venezuela as an example. Not coincidentally, Bolivarian environmental record is shit.

A well functioning economy is necessary for fixing the environment because people in economic distress cannot afford to care about the environment. The more prosperous the economy the bigger the concern for the environment.

if nobody is around to participate in it.

Oh yes, I forgot that we are all going to die in 12 years. My bad!

The entire reason we are in this mess is because of the economy, and because of putting it on a pedestal that everything else has to rearrange itself around.

Technically correct. Without economy civilization could not have been built.

The possibility that cutting CO2 to a sustainable level and keeping it there may be fundamentally incompatible with how our economy is currently organized is apparently too hideous to contemplate. In a contest between free markets with mass extinction and a planned economy with a livable climate, neoliberals will never choose a livable climate. That's why we need a debate.

Planned economy? Like in socialism? Do you understand that actually existing socialism was horrible for the environment?

 

[blastula]

once again.

Cute, but misses the mark. For one, we can discuss different policies on their own merit. We should not adopt them merely because Norway did.

Second, Norway has a small population, but large oil reserves. That means that they produce a lot of oil per capita - almost as much as Saudi Arabia and almost nine times as much as US. That results in a large windfall that can be invested in all sorts of government projects.

You mean Norway is the only nation that could be used as an example?

 

[Elixir]

Where is the example Republicans' capitalist utopia?
It pisses off the 'tards, but at least the Dems have an example of a socialist success.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Where is the example Republicans' capitalist utopia?
It pisses off the 'tards, but at least the Dems have an example of a socialist success.

If we are using the republican definitions (larger safety net = socialism; smaller safety net = capitalist utopia); republican capitalist utopia could be south Korea, Taiwan, the US. I don't think that Australia has the highest safety net in the world.

 

[Derec]

You mean Norway is the only nation that could be used as an example?

Whether or not it is the only nation that could be used, it is the nation that was used. A country with a population of 5 million and large oil production.

 

[Derec]

Where is the example Republicans' capitalist utopia?

There is no such thing as a utopia, but Norway is a successful capitalist country, just to name one example.

It pisses off the 'tards, but at least the Dems have an example of a socialist success.

Wrong. Socialism is not defined as a "capitalist country with stronger safety net than in the US". It means a system characterized by state ownership of means of production.

socialism noun
so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 

[angelo]

Where is the example Republicans' capitalist utopia?
It pisses off the 'tards, but at least the Dems have an example of a socialist success.

One example of a successful mixed capitalist/socialist system amongst a sea of failed ones is a very poor example to use. Besides, as someone has already pointed out. Norway has a tiny population in proportion to the US, and has almost an endless supply of natural gas and is sitting on an ocean of oil.

 

[RavenSky]

Socialism Is More Popular Than Donald Trump

“Trump Approval Edges Down to 42%,” read the headline from a May 17 Gallup review of its latest polling on the president’s appeal.

Three days later, Gallup reported that “43% of Americans say socialism would be a good thing for the country.”

That’s right—after months of attacking socialism, Trump came into mid-May with a 42 percent approval rating while socialism scored a 43. In fairness to Trump, these recent polls have margins of error, and surveys of presidential popularity and ideological alignment measure different apples and oranges. But it is still striking, as Trump’s approval numbers are ticking downward, socialism seems to be holding its own. Indeed, Gallup now notes, “about four in 10 Americans are accepting of some form of socialism or socialist policies.”

What’s even more striking are the measures of who likes socialism. The ideology is narrowly ahead with women, 48 percent of whom say that socialism is good for the country, as opposed to 47 percent who say it’s bad. (Men go 56 percent “bad,” versus 38 percent “good.”) And the Gallup survey suggests socialism is way ahead with nonwhite Americans, 57 percent of whom say its good for the country, versus just 35 percent who label the ideology bad.

Socialism is especially popular with young people. Among the Americans aged 18–34 who were surveyed by Gallup, 58 percent say it’s good for the country.

So if the future is female, if America is growing more diverse, and if today’s young people are destined to become more influential in our politics, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that socialism is “trending.”

My only takeaway from the above: Why the fuck does Trump have a 42% approval rating?

 

[RavenSky]

What's really dumb (and I mean really dumb) about all these 'but they pay more in taxes' arguments from the right wing, is that they don't actually care that we in the US are paying more for the same thing. It's still mandatory, but we don't call it taxes, so it's a-ok with these idiots.

The GOP propaganda machine has spent so much of the last 40 years convincing their sheep that taxes are the "Worst Thing Eva!" (TM) that it doesn't matter if taxes are a much better or more efficient way of doing things (even given the typical bureaucratic cockup that we're so good at) that they will happily pay three times as much, and can't opt out, as long as it isn't called 'taxation'. There's a whole section in The Authoritarians about how right wing authoritarian types believe in the magic power of words, and "taxes" is one of those words.

I calculated the difference in my stated tax rate, and my actual tax rate (actual being all the medical/healthcare costs that just come from my paycheck, not all the co-pays, prescription fees, etc. that most of those countries also don't pay) and the difference is pretty staggering. The actual tax rate for my bracket is nearly 40% higher than what is claimed.
Oh noes...socialism!!

^^^^ This!!

 

[RavenSky]

<Sigh> The Dems are such suckers. The republicans are wicked smart in promoting the idea that dem policies are socialist. A simple change of a word on their part gives them countless votes in the Mid-west. It's so sad. But brilliantly wicked by the republicans.

Benefitism. I'm a benefitist.

The Democrats are doing everything in their power to repudiate socialism, even as it receives widespread support among their base. Hickenlooper and Delaney both got loudly booed in California for attacking socialism and Medicare for All at the state Democratic convention. Hey, maybe that's just California. But in the 2016 primaries, Sanders won Michigan, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Indiana. He wasn't shy about calling himself a socialist then and he isn't now. The flyover states have a generally favorable opinion--sometimes moreso than the coastal states--of stuff like guaranteed federal jobs programs, aggressive action on climate change, breaking up large banks, and other socialist-leaning policies. And there's only a handful of policies that are broadly supported by a majority of both Democrats AND Republicans, but among them is the proposed 15% cap on payday loan interest rates and at least the protection (if not increase) of spending on Medicaid.

I wouldn't say "Democrats are..."

As you noted, Hickenlooper and Delaney did get loudly booed. Conversely, Democrats elected AOC and others.

 

[Terrell]

Socialism Is More Popular Than Donald Trump

“Trump Approval Edges Down to 42%,” read the headline from a May 17 Gallup review of its latest polling on the president’s appeal.

Three days later, Gallup reported that “43% of Americans say socialism would be a good thing for the country.”

That’s right—after months of attacking socialism, Trump came into mid-May with a 42 percent approval rating while socialism scored a 43. In fairness to Trump, these recent polls have margins of error, and surveys of presidential popularity and ideological alignment measure different apples and oranges. But it is still striking, as Trump’s approval numbers are ticking downward, socialism seems to be holding its own. Indeed, Gallup now notes, “about four in 10 Americans are accepting of some form of socialism or socialist policies.”

What’s even more striking are the measures of who likes socialism. The ideology is narrowly ahead with women, 48 percent of whom say that socialism is good for the country, as opposed to 47 percent who say it’s bad. (Men go 56 percent “bad,” versus 38 percent “good.”) And the Gallup survey suggests socialism is way ahead with nonwhite Americans, 57 percent of whom say its good for the country, versus just 35 percent who label the ideology bad.

Socialism is especially popular with young people. Among the Americans aged 18–34 who were surveyed by Gallup, 58 percent say it’s good for the country.

So if the future is female, if America is growing more diverse, and if today’s young people are destined to become more influential in our politics, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that socialism is “trending.”

My only takeaway from the above: Why the fuck does Trump have a 42% approval rating?

Easy, Red no matter who is what the Republicans do. The Left needs to do "Blue no matter who" if they wish to unseat Republicans.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The Democrats are doing everything in their power to repudiate socialism, even as it receives widespread support among their base. Hickenlooper and Delaney both got loudly booed in California for attacking socialism and Medicare for All at the state Democratic convention. Hey, maybe that's just California. But in the 2016 primaries, Sanders won Michigan, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Indiana. He wasn't shy about calling himself a socialist then and he isn't now. The flyover states have a generally favorable opinion--sometimes moreso than the coastal states--of stuff like guaranteed federal jobs programs, aggressive action on climate change, breaking up large banks, and other socialist-leaning policies. And there's only a handful of policies that are broadly supported by a majority of both Democrats AND Republicans, but among them is the proposed 15% cap on payday loan interest rates and at least the protection (if not increase) of spending on Medicaid.

I wouldn't say "Democrats are..."

As you noted, Hickenlooper and Delaney did get loudly booed. Conversely, Democrats elected AOC and others.

I'm not sure that I'd characterize AOC as a socialist. I've been reading her endless thread in the Political Discussions thread. She's more of an old fashioned democrat that wants a very broad and large safety net. She's been quoted over and over as favoring more of a "Nordic Model" where the state helps provide a high level of security for its citizens. But it's paid for by there very capitalistic free market companies. The Nordic countries greatly enforce property rights, free trade, little regulation on private sector, high level of union membership, and etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

I actually like AOC. Clearly the republicans are terrified of her and desperately trying to brand her as a "Socialist"!

 

[PyramidHead]

The Democrats are doing everything in their power to repudiate socialism, even as it receives widespread support among their base. Hickenlooper and Delaney both got loudly booed in California for attacking socialism and Medicare for All at the state Democratic convention. Hey, maybe that's just California. But in the 2016 primaries, Sanders won Michigan, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Indiana. He wasn't shy about calling himself a socialist then and he isn't now. The flyover states have a generally favorable opinion--sometimes moreso than the coastal states--of stuff like guaranteed federal jobs programs, aggressive action on climate change, breaking up large banks, and other socialist-leaning policies. And there's only a handful of policies that are broadly supported by a majority of both Democrats AND Republicans, but among them is the proposed 15% cap on payday loan interest rates and at least the protection (if not increase) of spending on Medicaid.

I wouldn't say "Democrats are..."

As you noted, Hickenlooper and Delaney did get loudly booed. Conversely, Democrats elected AOC and others.

When I said Democrats I should have been more specific about it, I meant the party establishment.

 

[Elixir]

There is no such thing as a utopia, but Norway is a successful capitalist country, just to name one example... It means a system characterized by state ownership of means of production.

Yeah, and Donald Trump has made so many sacrifices... OTOH, there's actual reality:
The Norwegian Government, the biggest shareholder in both Statoil and Norsk Hydro, holds 67% of the company.

Socialism is not defined as a "capitalist country with stronger safety net than in the US".

Gee, then I guess I'm not a socialist after all. Just a fan of democracy advocating for a stronger safety net in this "capitalist" country.
You can relax now - stop chanting "lock her up" and put away your MAGA hat.