DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
drummerboy said:
conandrob240 said:Trump is going to get demolished in this election.
the more I interact with people, the more I’m convinced we’re going to have Trump for 4 more years. I don’t think anyone in the democratic field can beat him. I want to vomit
Sounds like the talk on here in early 2015 where most of you said I was wrong for predicting he would win. There were even arguments about how ridiculous the notion was. Mark my words, we’ll have Trump again unless something dramatic changes with this democratic field
conandrob240 said:unless something dramatic changes with this democratic field
Like what?
Smedley said:
We should have quality healthcare and a clean environment. I support stuff like Obamacare and a real EPA that actually proctects the environment rather than protect corporate interests.
But I do not support the current progressive agenda, at least the one espoused by Bernie, of giving away the store, free stuff for everyone.
You're making a lot of dire predictions about what would happen if a progressive agenda were enacted, but I don't see much evidence.
And I don't see on its face why government investment in health care, education and energy would be detrimental to the economy. If anything, those investments would seem to be a stimulus to the economy.
I suppose if one works for the likes of Chase or Goldman Sachs, one would be fearful of regulations that might be detrimental to the share price. But unless you have data that backs up your predictions, I can only conclude that they are scare tactics being put forth by people with a vested interest in the status quo.
nan said:
Smedley said:Bernie is against free stuff too that's is why he calls out socialism for the rich. Medicare for All saves trillions of dollars because it gets rid of the free stuff insurance companies were getting. It is paid for through taxes also, so it is only free at the point of service.
We should have quality healthcare and a clean environment. I support stuff like Obamacare and a real EPA that actually proctects the environment rather than protect corporate interests.
But I do not support the current progressive agenda, at least the one espoused by Bernie, of giving away the store, free stuff for everyone.
Free College is an investment in our young people and will give them more money to help their lives and put more back into the economy (velocity of money).
This all comes back to the age-old centrist-progressive debate.
I think true single-payer M4A as Bernie calls for is a pipe dream. The long waits and exclusions of service that would have to happen under such a system mean it would never fly in the U.S. Plus I don’t know where you get your “saves trillions of dollars”, because everything I’ve read is that the plan would cost trillions of dollars.
Free college - I personally think 13 years of free education is enough. After that there are lots of federal grants and loans and other aid to help deserving lower-income young adults attend college. College isn’t for everyone — FC4A would cost a ton and fund the party time of too many young adults who probably shouldn’t be in college anyway. No thanks.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:You're making a lot of dire predictions about what would happen if a progressive agenda were enacted, but I don't see much evidence.
We should have quality healthcare and a clean environment. I support stuff like Obamacare and a real EPA that actually proctects the environment rather than protect corporate interests.
But I do not support the current progressive agenda, at least the one espoused by Bernie, of giving away the store, free stuff for everyone.
And I don't see on its face why government investment in health care, education and energy would be detrimental to the economy. If anything, those investments would seem to be a stimulus to the economy.
I suppose if one works for the likes of Chase or Goldman Sachs, one would be fearful of regulations that might be detrimental to the share price. But unless you have data that backs up your predictions, I can only conclude that they are scare tactics being put forth by people with a vested interest in the status quo.
Well to a certain extent we’re all stating opinions here. Of course I don’t *know* what will happen under a progressive president, but neither do you, nor does anybody else here. I’m sure for every data point I find that shows M4A would be a costly boondoggle, you could find one that shows it would boost the economy. And vice versa on FC4A.
I try to cite data where I think it makes sense, but I don’t think stating an opinion without citing data is a cardinal sin. Especially when it comes to economics.
Smedley said:
FC4A would cost a ton and fund the party time of too many young adults who probably shouldn’t be in college anyway. No thanks.
you've posted a few statements like this. Do you have evidence that these proposals also include lowering admission standards in addition to free tuition? Because I haven't seen any proposals that suggest opening the doors of universities to anyone regardless of merit.
Smedley said:
Well to a certain extent we’re all stating opinions here. Of course I don’t *know* what will happen under a progressive president, but neither do you, nor does anybody else here. I’m sure for every data point I find that shows M4A would be a costly boondoggle, you could find one that shows it would boost the economy. And vice versa on FC4A.
I try to cite data where I think it makes sense, but I don’t think stating an opinion without citing data is a cardinal sin. Especially when it comes to economics.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/10-reasons-why-economics-is-an-art-not-a-science/2013/08/08/7c501020-ffb5-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html?utm_term=.3e0186d1eaca
Of course I don't know what will happen. Which is why I don't post declarative statements of what will happen. But if you're going to make such strong statements, IMHO you should have something to back it up other than "I pulled this out of my ***."
Instead of simply making college free, why not develop a curriculum for those who aspire to a college degree that might shave off a year. I think we could do better than that but I'm setting a small goal. If the government wants to offer free 2 year degrees they would only be paying for one. That helps struggling families who usually support their children through the 4 years and then often have to consider an extra 2 for an MA.
I've written this a few times before, but I feel like people are getting WAY too hung up on the word "free." When I was college age, tuition wasn't literally free, but it was certainly affordable. A semester at Rutgers when I graduated from HS was about $750. A year of tuition AND room and board was roughly $4K. In constant dollars that would be about $13K for tuition and room and board. But it's now more than twice that amount.
We should absolutely be striving toward public higher education that is as affordable as it was for the Baby Boomers. As a Boomer I'm ashamed that our generation is so selfish, and so eager to pull the ladder up after we've climbed it. We absolutely owe it to the current generation of students to give them the same educational opportunities we had. Our parents gave that opportunity it us, and it's unconscionable that we won't give it to the kids of this generation.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:I don't post declarative statements of what will happen.
Well to a certain extent we’re all stating opinions here. Of course I don’t *know* what will happen under a progressive president, but neither do you, nor does anybody else here. I’m sure for every data point I find that shows M4A would be a costly boondoggle, you could find one that shows it would boost the economy. And vice versa on FC4A.
I try to cite data where I think it makes sense, but I don’t think stating an opinion without citing data is a cardinal sin. Especially when it comes to economics.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/10-reasons-why-economics-is-an-art-not-a-science/2013/08/08/7c501020-ffb5-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html?utm_term=.3e0186d1eaca
Ok man...
Klinker said:
conandrob240 said:Like what?
unless something dramatic changes with this democratic field
Not sure. Someone different, unexpected enters the race? someone does something so defining, they actually stand out in a totally unexpected way? The Democrats unite quickly and fully behind one strong person and ALL together push hard for that person to win (might already be too late for this). Or Trump does something so far out there that his followers finally stray (I don’t see this as a possibility really any more though).
Smedley said:
Ok man...
you can watch forever, and you're not likely to see any statements from me that don't include qualifiers. It's ingrained in me by virtue of my education and my profession.
Even this reply started with a qualifier 
Every progressive idea is met by naysayers who predict catastrophe.
I am old enough to remember that Medicare was met with the same skepticism as Smedley for M4A. I wonder if free public high school was met with the same arguments as we hear against free four year college. I would not be surprised.
I wonder what people said when Townsend Harris proposed the predecessor to my alma mater, which he called the Free Academy in the middle of the 18th century.
STANV said:
Every progressive idea is met by naysayers who predict catastrophe.
I am old enough to remember that Medicare was met with the same skepticism as Smedley for M4A. I wonder if free public high school was met with the same arguments as we hear against free four year college. I would not be surprised.
I wonder what people said when Townsend Harris proposed the predecessor to my alma mater, which he called the Free Academy in the middle of the 18th century.
Very well put
Klinker said:
You are just substituting Bernie for the DNC. The concept of political patronage is rotten to the core. If your goal is simply to replace the old machine with a new machine, then that is where we part ways.
No, I want her to endorse Bernie because he's more in line with her viewpoint of Democratic Socialism and there is nothing wrong with wanting a person to help a cause they are a part of helping. Besides, she does not even know I exist so my view on her endorsement choice has no effect at all.
Klinker said:
The goal of most progressives is not to build a new Machine which forces politicians into patron/client relationships. Frankly, I find your post to be quite shocking.
No, the goal of progressive presidential candidates is to win major office. An OAC endorsement would help that. She's going to endorse either Bernie or Warren--I can't imagine she would pick Tulsi, Williamson or Yang. I want her to pick Bernie and I'm stating why. Warren is sucking up to her big time and she clearly likes Warren and Bernie so I don't know who she will pick at this time, but of course I'm hoping for Bernie. Nothing wrong with that. Hope springs eternal.
conandrob240 said:
Not sure. Someone different, unexpected enters the race? someone does something so defining, they actually stand out in a totally unexpected way? The Democrats unite quickly and fully behind one strong person and ALL together push hard for that person to win (might already be too late for this). Or Trump does something so far out there that his followers finally stray (I don’t see this as a possibility really any more though).
There are 24 candidates. Some are very different and unexpected. The Dems were pretty united behind Hillary and she looked strong until the votes were counted, that is, the Electoral votes. She won the popular vote pretty strongly.
Trump said he could shoot someone in public and his supporters would still support him. Those who haven't strayed by now won't.
Are you just a "glass is half empty" kind of person?
conandrob240 said:
drummerboy said:Sounds like the talk on here in early 2015 where most of you said I was wrong for predicting he would win. There were even arguments about how ridiculous the notion was. Mark my words, we’ll have Trump again unless something dramatic changes with this democratic field
conandrob240 said:Trump is going to get demolished in this election.
the more I interact with people, the more I’m convinced we’re going to have Trump for 4 more years. I don’t think anyone in the democratic field can beat him. I want to vomit
well, you'll not a find post from me saying that from back then. (and I would like to see that post of yours from "early 2015", when he hadn't even announced yet, where you predicted his victory.)
But 2020 ain't 2016. More than 50% of voters say that won't vote for him. That's a tough hill to climb to get to a victory. And it's unlikely 3 states will be decided by rounding errors again.
Smedley said:
This all comes back to the age-old centrist-progressive debate.
I think true single-payer M4A as Bernie calls for is a pipe dream. The long waits and exclusions of service that would have to happen under such a system mean it would never fly in the U.S. Plus I don’t know where you get your “saves trillions of dollars”, because everything I’ve read is that the plan would cost trillions of dollars.
Free college - I personally think 13 years of free education is enough. After that there are lots of federal grants and loans and other aid to help deserving lower-income young adults attend college. College isn’t for everyone — FC4A would cost a ton and fund the party time of too many young adults who probably shouldn’t be in college anyway. No thanks.
Of course everything you have read says it will cost trillions of dollars and increase wait times. The insurance companies are spending millions of dollars to get that information out to you, and they have lots of access to mainstream news. In fact, getting rid of the insurance companies (the middle man) will save trillions of dollars. Also, right now we are paying more for healthcare than anyone else for worse outcomes--so quality can only go up. I posted lots of information on the Medicare for All Thread. You might want to check that out. Be very careful of your sources because the establishment does not want you to want Medicare for All and you should.
As for free college--we used to have that. When I was young, college was free and then went to a small amount of money. My first year of college (1975-1976) cost $2,000 including room and board. It would be more adjusted for inflation now, but not like it is.
And you should not be the one deciding who is right for college and who is not. I was practically illiterate when I got to college. I only got in because I had an art portfolio and I wanted to be an art major. I worked really hard and hung out with English majors and learned a lot and finally learned how to study and do well. I've known lots of other with similar stories. I've also known people who dropped out of college and even they benefited from the time they spent there in terms of maturity and knowledge. I think it is in the best interest of the country that we make college free and easily accessible to all. It's much cheaper than prisons--which we should have less of.
conandrob240 said:
Not sure. Someone different, unexpected enters the race? someone does something so defining, they actually stand out in a totally unexpected way? The Democrats unite quickly and fully behind one strong person and ALL together push hard for that person to win (might already be too late for this). Or Trump does something so far out there that his followers finally stray (I don’t see this as a possibility really any more though).
Like what would this person be like? We already have a crop of establishment Dems and a few real Progressives and some sort of Progressives. We even have some odd balls like Yang with UBI and Inslee with only climate change. There are 22 people to choose from. What kind of candidate is missing that everyone would get behind? Seriously, because the minute they take corporate funding they are out for the people who want a Progressive. And the minute they start supporting programs that people really want like M4A or GND, the establishment Dems are horrified.
So, what positions/funding are missing that would unite everyone? Please describe what such a person would be like.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:You can tell a lot about people by the kind of words they think are good for puns.
I'm not making up the Warren Mongers name--this is what they are called, especially in response to being called Bernie Bots or Bernie Bros.
How do you feel about "Gabbardines"? 
nohero said:
How do you feel about "Gabbardines"?
you can tell a lot about people by whether or not they like puns at all.
As one who was overly enthusiastic on Election night right here on MOL, I drank half of my champagne before the Florida votes came in. So for this round, I'm in the glass half empty group.
nan said:
LOST said:Actually not true. Her foreign policy bothers a lot of Bernie supporters. This joint resolution helps some, but not enough.
They are joint sponsors of a resolution on Israel and the West Bank. They have differences but not enough that the supporters of one would not be comfortable supporting the other.
I think that the descriptions of Warren's foreign policy that some Bernie supporters promulgate, and read, give an inaccurate picture. Which is too bad, because she's gone to the trouble of authoring a piece in Foreign Policy about it, and giving at least one major address.
nan said:
Also, he is much more confrontational about taking on all the billionaires and pushing through New Deal Style legislation. She is "a capitalist to her bones" and therefore more neoliberal in her outlook.
She went after the banks, which is how she came to fame, and in general you're not accurately describing her. Also, taking one phrase out of context isn't a legitimate argument, especially given her track record.
ml1 said:
you can tell a lot about people by whether or not they like puns at all.
It's Fathers Day, the annual commemoration of the "Dad Joke". 
nohero said:
It's Fathers Day, the annual commemoration of the "Dad Joke".
Horse walks into a bar. The bartender says "Why the long face?"
ml1 said:
Horse walks into a bar. The bartender says "Why the long face?"
When does a joke become a dad joke? When it becomes apparent.
sbenois said:
That person would look a lot like Mayor Pete.
No, he just got officially cancelled:
Wall Street Donors Are Swooning for Mayor Pete. (They Like Biden and Harris, Too.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/16/us/politics/2020-democratic-donors-wall-street.html
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
I do agree with Nan that condemning “free stuff” while supporting a system entirely centered on corporate welfare is a tad hypocritical. When you add to that the fact that many of the corporations suckling at the government teat are multinationals it become straight up despicable.