SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Coronavirus thread tangent
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 10, 2020 10:51:24 GMT -5
Bernie is still capitalist. Would there remain individuals or corporations in charge of production with others laboring for them and producing surplus value? Yes. But I agree, actually. Americans seem uniquely immune to social programs. Obama was right when he said they cling to Bibles and guns. Too many have made a shibboleth of abstract freedoms and would rather a system that impoverishes them generationally as long as they maintain abstract freedoms they might not have the money or health to enjoy. I wish every American read Isaiah Berlin on the difference between negative and positive freedom. We protect our freedom not to be bothered at the expense of creating the freedom to reach our full potentials through education, universal health care, universal day care, shorter work weeks, better parental leave, higher wages and other “radical” socialist policies. I really dislike these sorts of cultural determinist arguments. Americans are uniquely immune to social programs? Well what the heck was going on under the New Deal, and Johnson's Great Society? Why did Bernie just win like 70% of the under-40 vote in the Democratic primary? It's not "Americans" that don't like social programs, it's about 1.5 generations, born between the '40s and the '70s, who have an anomalous allergy to the basic welfare-state capitalism model that dominates throughout the Western World. They've been dominant in politics for the last few decades, but they'll be swept out with the demographic tide, as every generation eventually is. That’s fair. I don’t mean biologically immune or anything. And it certainly is a Cold War response. But we clearly have resisted basic progress policies in a way that is different from most of the developed world in stunning fashion. I hope that passes with Boomers. Maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Apr 10, 2020 10:56:45 GMT -5
I'm not saying Republicans have no moral standards. I was just following your own logic - you said the reason they end up supporting someone like Trump who is incapable of human decency is because they've been accused of lacking human deceency in the past, therefore they stop caring about their leaders having human decency. That's perverse to me. It’s perverse but that’s not how the world and people don’t do things logically especially when caught up in emotions. Those things baffle me as well so I’m not going to push back but I’ll offer a couple things that bother me about the left equally as much. Accuse, Trump of be a fascist and inciting violence yet support(ed) Antifa and it’s violence and are fine with shutting down free speech if it’s speech they don’t like. They are also supposedly worried about Trump being a dictator and possibly not even leaving office when his term is over yet they want to turn more power over to the Federal Government and make it bigger. It’s like “hey, we may have elected someone who wants to take over our Government so let’s put more responsibility on the Government that the next person can fuck with.” All your fears about Trump should lead you over to where I am and want less Government intervention. And I’m not a dumb Libertarian who wants no Government. Sorry if anyone here is but that’s silliness. Well this is reminiscent of the discussion upthread about how anti-science the parties are... On the one hand, you have some antifa cosplayers who like to harass white supremacists in street protests and some overly woke college students shouting down speakers at campuses; and on the other hand you have, uh, the President of the United States. Once again, you will find vanishingly few elected Democrats who endorse antifa or the most extreme of the social justice protesters. I wouldn't really blame anyone for being annoyed by those groups on the left. (Though there's also an enormous media machine designed to stir up angst about every little thing that happens at Middlebury or Oberlin or whatever; seriously, who cares? It's a handful of liberal arts students.) But there's a total asymmetry between the parties here. |
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 10, 2020 11:02:43 GMT -5
It’s perverse but that’s not how the world and people don’t do things logically especially when caught up in emotions. Those things baffle me as well so I’m not going to push back but I’ll offer a couple things that bother me about the left equally as much. Accuse, Trump of be a fascist and inciting violence yet support(ed) Antifa and it’s violence and are fine with shutting down free speech if it’s speech they don’t like. They are also supposedly worried about Trump being a dictator and possibly not even leaving office when his term is over yet they want to turn more power over to the Federal Government and make it bigger. It’s like “hey, we may have elected someone who wants to take over our Government so let’s put more responsibility on the Government that the next person can fuck with.” All your fears about Trump should lead you over to where I am and want less Government intervention. And I’m not a dumb Libertarian who wants no Government. Sorry if anyone here is but that’s silliness. Well this is reminiscent of the discussion upthread about how anti-science the parties are... On the one hand, you have some antifa cosplayers who like to harass white supremacists in street protests and some overly woke college students shouting down speakers at campuses; and on the other hand you have, uh, the President of the United States. Once again, you will find vanishingly few elected Democrats who endorse antifa or the most extreme of the social justice protesters. I wouldn't really blame anyone for being annoyed by those groups on the left. (Though there's also an enormous media machine designed to stir up angst about every little thing that happens at Middlebury or Oberlin or whatever; seriously, who cares? It's a handful of liberal arts students.) But there's a total asymmetry between the parties here. I’m actually curious: do any elected Dems support Antifa? And... what is Antifa? I mean, it seems like a boogie man. Anyone who shows up for a protest in black and misbehaves... Antifa. But is it a real group? Membership cards? Rules? |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Apr 10, 2020 11:04:10 GMT -5
If you really care about the Constitution then you should be absolutely appalled at McConnell refusing to do his duty and allow Obama to fill vacant court seats when he still had 10 months left in his term. It's fine that you prioritize abortion above everything else (well, maybe not fine but logically coherent at least), but you're deluding yourself if you think you're on the side of the framers here. I'm not a Constitutional scholar so correct me if I'm wrong. It's not the Senates job to let the President fill a Supreme Court seat. The Senate is under no obligation to accept the Presidents nomination. In fact, it's their job to approve a nomination or not under whatever reason they choose to. But more importantly... when you play political games; they come back to bite you in the ass later. Democrats were the first to launch wide scale filibusters against George W's nominees. The more controversial one they blocked was Miguel Estrada for the US Court of Appeals and internal memo's came to light that they blocked him because he was Latino and Democrats were worried the Republicans would eventually be the first to nominate a Latino judge to the Supreme Court. Democrats then got upset that Republicans followed their lead with Obama judges so they created the nuclear option which eliminated the filibuster for all nominations except the Supreme Court. This helped them short-term but was obviously going to come back to bite them in the ass. So Republicans refused to confirm Merrick Garland and had legs to stand on because Chuck Shumer made promises in 2007 that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during Bush's final year. THEN Democrats out of spite filibustered Neil M. Gorsuch, despite him being an extremely qualified nominee and who was praised by people on both sides. Because they did this, the Republicans ended the filibuster for Supreme Court Judges as well so all they needed was a simple majority. Every single domino fell because Democrats played political games and those same games got turned against them. Democrats didn't prevent GWB from filling Supreme Court seats, though. They filibustered a few of his most controversial nominations for lower courts. It's totally disanalogous to what McConnell did. But you're right - McConnell was totally within his constitutional rights to block that nomination, even if it went completely against precedent. But what sort of equilibrium is this, where parties can just deny the president of the opposing party their choices for the Supreme Court? The US constitutional system is built to require consensus, but how is consensus going to be achieved in an age when the parties are totally polarized. It's a problem of institutional design. I just hope it's not a fatal flaw... |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Apr 10, 2020 11:04:51 GMT -5
Reasonable, but I’ll answer: first, there is no moral logic to many of the exceptions. That is, for the religious folks trying to impose their nonsensical notions of souls on the rest of us, aborting a baby is murdering a person. But then why make a rape exception? It isn’t that wee soul’s fault how it cane about. That is not a “moral” exception. It is Political convenience, because most of us who separate politics from sky daddy think it is obscene to force a woman to carry a child spawned in trauma. To the larger issue: it IS a body issue even if it is about the 18 years... or any other reason. The point is, a woman can choose what to do with her body and factor all kinds of things in. Does she want to spend 9 months carrying (at moderate health risk in ALL cases) a baby, suckle it on birth, care for it, etc? If not, she can take control of her body. I guess my point is, you are discussing motives for abortion. Those vary. But the principle binding them is a woman should not be forced to be an incubator if she does not want to be... whatever the motive. I am obviously veeeerrry pro-choice. I would have virtually no restrictions. Since a fetus is not an agent, has no sense of self, no identity, I don’t see it as having any standing relative to the woman. Most religious people are likely not in favor of a rape exception. The only exception they have is when the life of the woman is in danger, typically anyways. Obviously, individuals vary. Ok so your measure is a fetus has no sense of self... What is a sense of self? How do you define that? Does a 1 day old have a sense of self? Do you magically obtain a sense of self once you pass thru the birth canal? And under your thought process, you're ok with a woman 34 weeks pregnant just deciding she doesn't want to give birth so she can abort that baby. Ok fine, but at that point the baby is fully functional and can survive on it's own. The abortion is just as if not more invasive than the actual birth so why not take a living baby out and let it have a life away from the mother? I understand the later term abortion discussion is not a wide spread issue. Very few actually take place and even fewer of a healthy baby. The discussion is worth having from a moral perspective though on coming to terms with what abortion is actually about. The same people who are prochoice and have had abortions of unwanted babies themselves will show the 12 week ultrasound and gush about their baby and hearing it's heart beat and seeing them flip in the womb. I struggle with people having both views on things. I prefer we just call it what it is. We accept abortion because it's a big convenience we don't want to give up. I'm really getting tired of politics, maybe it's because Bernie has officially lost and the DNC is setting us up for "just settle for Joe" (whose been accused of sexual assault after the party championed being on the side of women and tore down a Supreme Court nominee and Trump) vs Trump who had a great economy going for him (and remarkably, has rebounded nicely despite still being in crisis), but is appallingly disrespectful, spreads disinformation, and was woefully underprepared for this virus. To me, the plus side to voting for Trump is to, once again, try again in 4 years with a new progressive candidate rather than wait 8 years. The aspect of that makes me want to poke my eyes out. Not even so much because of Trump. The unreasonable love and hate for him is so over the top it's frustrating. I want to see both sides lose and hate the idea one of them are going to be declared a winning in November. If I had to hedge my bets, the DNC picking Joe as the most "electable candidate" is incredibly devoid of better judgement. Biden can't invigorate a base like Trump can and the whole message being pushed is, "don't vote for Trump". It's never, "Biden is our guy! We need Biden's vision and policy!" It's a campaign based on fear mongering with no forward direction. Now, we're getting into the conversation of abortion in a coronavirus thread. To which, I say, it's no my body, it's not my soul, I wouldn't favor it, but I'm not going to tell someone else what they can and can't do. I'm not religious, the world already has too many people, unwanted children have much staggering number of homelessness and lower education. It's rare you see an unadopted child go on to becoming a world class surgeon or doctor. I think there should be limitations as to what that is. A woman whose a week away from having a baby and starts having second thoughts shouldn't be allowed to go in and get one. Whatever the reasonable length of time is to figure out you're pregnant, give about 2-3 weeks after that and then if you haven't decided by then, that's your own fault. I think anyone who calls the morning after pill an abortion is frankly, bat poop insane. That's my personal two cents on the matter. I do find it ironic that there's a large group of "pro-lifers" that are willing to sacrifice the elderly and the immune compromised in the name of the economy. I think I just needed to vent. |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Apr 10, 2020 11:07:49 GMT -5
I'm surprised Iceland would rank higher. I've been there. Vik, for example, is a town where you can see literally all the houses (not including the farm houses that have about 10 acres of land each. There's just so much space, a small population of 332,500, but a workforce of about 192,850. Then again, while their capital doesn't feel much different than visiting Concord NH, 60% of their population live here. I don't know how much of an effect it had but there's a ton of international business that takes place in Iceland. Loose banking laws and a three person task force for money laundering that only investigates if there are complaints is a convenient mix for international transactions. ADD: Iceland, Mongolia and Zimbabwe are all grey listed by the Financial Action Task Force for money laundering. Particularly troubling is money laundering for terrorist organizations. If you want to learn more Google Iceland money laundering and you will get 10 pages of reports. That doesn't surprise me. The entire country relies on tourism. The people living there were frightened by the two largest epidemics facing the country, global climate change (warm weather has really been destroying their ice caves and glaciers) and youth emigration. The taxation rate has made it a hard place to live and the youth are leaving to go to school and live elsewhere. It's becoming an older country that isn't working. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 10, 2020 11:12:28 GMT -5
Bernie is still capitalist. Would there remain individuals or corporations in charge of production with others laboring for them and producing surplus value? Yes. But I agree, actually. Americans seem uniquely immune to social programs. Obama was right when he said they cling to Bibles and guns. Too many have made a shibboleth of abstract freedoms and would rather a system that impoverishes them generationally as long as they maintain abstract freedoms they might not have the money or health to enjoy. I wish every American read Isaiah Berlin on the difference between negative and positive freedom. We protect our freedom not to be bothered at the expense of creating the freedom to reach our full potentials through education, universal health care, universal day care, shorter work weeks, better parental leave, higher wages and other “radical” socialist policies. I really dislike these sorts of cultural determinist arguments. Americans are uniquely immune to social programs? Well what the heck was going on under the New Deal, and Johnson's Great Society? Why did Bernie just win like 70% of the under-40 vote in the Democratic primary? It's not "Americans" that don't like social programs, it's about 1.5 generations, born between the '40s and the '70s, who have an anomalous allergy to the basic welfare-state capitalism model that dominates throughout the Western World. They've been dominant in politics for the last few decades, but they'll be swept out with the demographic tide, as every generation eventually is. The 60's were all about peace, love and brotherhood. Make love not war. Funny thing happened along the way as we matured, we became realists. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Apr 10, 2020 11:20:01 GMT -5
Question. Since it's established that I'm a Trump supporter and therefore a racist. Who's going to tell my brown wife and tan children ? The news is going to be devastating to them. I have no reason to think you're a racist (whatever that might mean), and no interest in calling you one, or catching you out or whatever. But I'm curious to try coming at this from another direction. Here is a poll that finds that 83% of black Americans think Trump is racist. According to this poll, 51% of Americans overall think Trump is racist, including 46% of whites. 59% of women think he's racist. So my question is: even if you disagree with them, why do you think they think he's racist? What do you think their sincere explanation of their view would be? And bearing in mind that a group that includes 46% of whites and 59% of women gets you well beyond the members of those groups who identify as Democrats. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Apr 10, 2020 11:25:39 GMT -5
I really dislike these sorts of cultural determinist arguments. Americans are uniquely immune to social programs? Well what the heck was going on under the New Deal, and Johnson's Great Society? Why did Bernie just win like 70% of the under-40 vote in the Democratic primary? It's not "Americans" that don't like social programs, it's about 1.5 generations, born between the '40s and the '70s, who have an anomalous allergy to the basic welfare-state capitalism model that dominates throughout the Western World. They've been dominant in politics for the last few decades, but they'll be swept out with the demographic tide, as every generation eventually is. The 60's were all about peace, love and brotherhood. Make love not war. Funny thing happened along the way as we matured, we became realists. Unlike those doe-eyed sissies from the Greatest Generation that fought WWII, defeated fascism, and supported the New Deal and the Great Society! But I noted you extolling Duterte's socialist programs a few comments back, so maybe you're not as realistic as you think you are.  |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 10, 2020 11:34:11 GMT -5
The 60's were all about peace, love and brotherhood. Make love not war. Funny thing happened along the way as we matured, we became realists. Unlike those doe-eyed sissies from the Greatest Generation that fought WWII, defeated fascism, and supported the New Deal and the Great Society! But I noted you extolling Duterte's socialist programs a few comments back, so maybe you're not as realistic as you think you are. I'm not sure why you think I am against social programs, I'm not, it's doable as long as people be realistic which is far from the extremists view. You can have social programs and democracy at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Apr 10, 2020 11:35:29 GMT -5
Question. Since it's established that I'm a Trump supporter and therefore a racist. Who's going to tell my brown wife and tan children ? The news is going to be devastating to them. I have no reason to think you're a racist (whatever that might mean), and no interest in calling you one, or catching you out or whatever. But I'm curious to try coming at this from another direction. Here is a poll that finds that 83% of black Americans think Trump is racist. According to this poll, 51% of Americans overall think Trump is racist, including 46% of whites. 59% of women think he's racist. So my question is: even if you disagree with them, why do you think they think he's racist? What do you think their sincere explanation of their view would be? And bearing in mind that a group that includes 46% of whites and 59% of women gets you well beyond the members of those groups who identify as Democrats. I hate these conversations because it starts with generalization and offering any rebuttal sounds as though it's going to come off as racist in some sort of way. I will say that there's a lot of media push in playing the "Trump is racist card". This isn't a new tactic, remember Kanye West's, "George Bush doesn't care about black people"? 29% of the population identifies as Democrat. I'm sure the 39% who declare being independent that about half of them lean towards Democratic policies. What I also find interesting is the power black leaders seem to have. It seems whenever they endorse a candidate that they tend to follow along. Bernie's biggest failure was never being able to captivate black, establishment leaders. Which, might have been an impossible task to begin with. So, if John Lewis calls Trump a racist, you better believe that will resonate within the community. Please note, I'm not arguing for or against Trump being rightfully labeled a racist, just giving some feedback as to why the numbers appear as they do. I will say that a microcosm of that number are from actual racists voting for Trump because they believe it too. |
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 10, 2020 11:41:20 GMT -5
Most religious people are likely not in favor of a rape exception. The only exception they have is when the life of the woman is in danger, typically anyways. Obviously, individuals vary. Ok so your measure is a fetus has no sense of self... What is a sense of self? How do you define that? Does a 1 day old have a sense of self? Do you magically obtain a sense of self once you pass thru the birth canal? And under your thought process, you're ok with a woman 34 weeks pregnant just deciding she doesn't want to give birth so she can abort that baby. Ok fine, but at that point the baby is fully functional and can survive on it's own. The abortion is just as if not more invasive than the actual birth so why not take a living baby out and let it have a life away from the mother? I understand the later term abortion discussion is not a wide spread issue. Very few actually take place and even fewer of a healthy baby. The discussion is worth having from a moral perspective though on coming to terms with what abortion is actually about. The same people who are prochoice and have had abortions of unwanted babies themselves will show the 12 week ultrasound and gush about their baby and hearing it's heart beat and seeing them flip in the womb. I struggle with people having both views on things. I prefer we just call it what it is. We accept abortion because it's a big convenience we don't want to give up. I'm really getting tired of politics, maybe it's because Bernie has officially lost and the DNC is setting us up for "just settle for Joe" (whose been accused of sexual assault after the party championed being on the side of women and tore down a Supreme Court nominee and Trump) vs Trump who had a great economy going for him (and remarkably, has rebounded nicely despite still being in crisis), but is appallingly disrespectful, spreads disinformation, and was woefully underprepared for this virus. To me, the plus side to voting for Trump is to, once again, try again in 4 years with a new progressive candidate rather than wait 8 years. The aspect of that makes me want to poke my eyes out. Not even so much because of Trump. The unreasonable love and hate for him is so over the top it's frustrating. I want to see both sides lose and hate the idea one of them are going to be declared a winning in November. If I had to hedge my bets, the DNC picking Joe as the most "electable candidate" is incredibly devoid of better judgement. Biden can't invigorate a base like Trump can and the whole message being pushed is, "don't vote for Trump". It's never, "Biden is our guy! We need Biden's vision and policy!" It's a campaign based on fear mongering with no forward direction. Now, we're getting into the conversation of abortion in a coronavirus thread. To which, I say, it's no my body, it's not my soul, I wouldn't favor it, but I'm not going to tell someone else what they can and can't do. I'm not religious, the world already has too many people, unwanted children have much staggering number of homelessness and lower education. It's rare you see an unadopted child go on to becoming a world class surgeon or doctor. I think there should be limitations as to what that is. A woman whose a week away from having a baby and starts having second thoughts shouldn't be allowed to go in and get one. Whatever the reasonable length of time is to figure out you're pregnant, give about 2-3 weeks after that and then if you haven't decided by then, that's your own fault. I think anyone who calls the morning after pill an abortion is frankly, bat poop insane. That's my personal two cents on the matter. I do find it ironic that there's a large group of "pro-lifers" that are willing to sacrifice the elderly and the immune compromised in the name of the economy. I think I just needed to vent. You and I likely overlap a lot, except I really bristle at the argument that the DNC or some other cabal shut out Bernie. He has run twice, and twice he has gotten creamed in a democratic process. He, like Trump, has a firm grip on a solid minority. But even more than Trump, he has failed to convince the non-converts to go along with him. I was a Warren supporter, and I am far left. I like AOC. I would NEVER support Bernie. I think he is myopically focused on a few issues (that matter!) but he overlooks too many others. But worst of all, he seems entitled. Last cycle, he did well with some groups in the Dem tent, but really failed with others, like African Americans. In the four years since, he did nothing to expand his appeal. He never contacted Jim Clyburn, for example. That is arrogant, and it demonstrates really poor leadership. In the end, Bernie gas been around forever, and he has never accomplished anything. If we want progressive goals, we need people who can convince non-progressives. He couldn’t even convince all progressives! Biden is a big snooze, but I’ll take competence right now. Hopefully he picks a strong VP, elevates her to prominence, and charts a path towards the future. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Apr 10, 2020 11:59:59 GMT -5
Unlike those doe-eyed sissies from the Greatest Generation that fought WWII, defeated fascism, and supported the New Deal and the Great Society! But I noted you extolling Duterte's socialist programs a few comments back, so maybe you're not as realistic as you think you are. I'm not sure why you think I am against social programs, I'm not, it's doable as long as people be realistic which is far from the extremists view. You can have social programs and democracy at the same time. I didn't think you were against them! I'm just responding to your comment about "growing up and becoming realists," which seems to contradict your own support for those programs - which are also the kind of programs supported by young people. |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Apr 10, 2020 12:06:13 GMT -5
I'm really getting tired of politics, maybe it's because Bernie has officially lost and the DNC is setting us up for "just settle for Joe" (whose been accused of sexual assault after the party championed being on the side of women and tore down a Supreme Court nominee and Trump) vs Trump who had a great economy going for him (and remarkably, has rebounded nicely despite still being in crisis), but is appallingly disrespectful, spreads disinformation, and was woefully underprepared for this virus. To me, the plus side to voting for Trump is to, once again, try again in 4 years with a new progressive candidate rather than wait 8 years. The aspect of that makes me want to poke my eyes out. Not even so much because of Trump. The unreasonable love and hate for him is so over the top it's frustrating. I want to see both sides lose and hate the idea one of them are going to be declared a winning in November. If I had to hedge my bets, the DNC picking Joe as the most "electable candidate" is incredibly devoid of better judgement. Biden can't invigorate a base like Trump can and the whole message being pushed is, "don't vote for Trump". It's never, "Biden is our guy! We need Biden's vision and policy!" It's a campaign based on fear mongering with no forward direction. Now, we're getting into the conversation of abortion in a coronavirus thread. To which, I say, it's no my body, it's not my soul, I wouldn't favor it, but I'm not going to tell someone else what they can and can't do. I'm not religious, the world already has too many people, unwanted children have much staggering number of homelessness and lower education. It's rare you see an unadopted child go on to becoming a world class surgeon or doctor. I think there should be limitations as to what that is. A woman whose a week away from having a baby and starts having second thoughts shouldn't be allowed to go in and get one. Whatever the reasonable length of time is to figure out you're pregnant, give about 2-3 weeks after that and then if you haven't decided by then, that's your own fault. I think anyone who calls the morning after pill an abortion is frankly, bat poop insane. That's my personal two cents on the matter. I do find it ironic that there's a large group of "pro-lifers" that are willing to sacrifice the elderly and the immune compromised in the name of the economy. I think I just needed to vent. You and I likely overlap a lot, except I really bristle at the argument that the DNC or some other cabal shut out Bernie. He has run twice, and twice he has gotten creamed in a democratic process. He, like Trump, has a firm grip on a solid minority. But even more than Trump, he has failed to convince the non-converts to go along with him. I was a Warren supporter, and I am far left. I like AOC. I would NEVER support Bernie. I think he is myopically focused on a few issues (that matter!) but he overlooks too many others. But worst of all, he seems entitled. Last cycle, he did well with some groups in the Dem tent, but really failed with others, like African Americans. In the four years since, he did nothing to expand his appeal. He never contacted Jim Clyburn, for example. That is arrogant, and it demonstrates really poor leadership. In the end, Bernie gas been around forever, and he has never accomplished anything. If we want progressive goals, we need people who can convince non-progressives. He couldn’t even convince all progressives! Biden is a big snooze, but I’ll take competence right now. Hopefully he picks a strong VP, elevates her to prominence, and charts a path towards the future. More than likely, but I'm interested how you could support AOC and Warren, but not Sanders? In 2016, Sanders asked Warren to run. She wouldn't, so he did. Then during this campaign she had the gaul to accuse him of being sexist. AOC is a staunch Bernie supporter as well. I firmly believe if she had dropped out when everyone else did (fully knowing she wasn't going to win a single state) that Bernie would have won Super Tuesday and then we'd have a different race right now. I admit I think 2020's Democratic process was more fairly balanced than 2016, but 2016 the party really put in the screws to him. People can cite Russian collusion all they want, but the content of the leaked emails don't change. They refused to hold debates outside of prime time. They purposefully rescheduled, cancelled, and left debate performances to go against the likes of the Walking Dead when it was still beating NFL ratings. Tulsi Gabbard resigned to support Sanders and she received nasty emails from establishment members who said they'd never donate to her campaigns ever again. Heck, Hillary Clinton tried to call an active major in the military whose a combat veteran a Russian puppet. In 2020, Bernie was doing extremely well with the latino/hispanic voter. That was his major calling card in his win in Nevada and what made all the other candidates fold. Biden's big strength was with the black vote and the southern Democrats all aligned with the former vice president of the beloved Barack Obama. I don't think there was really much Sanders could do. Jim Clayburn is very good friends with Joe Biden. I'm not excusing Sanders failures. I agree that he could have done more to appeal to more. I almost half wonder if he wasn't really running to win, but to espouse his ideals. I didn't really expect him to push much legislation, but with him at the top, I was hoping for a trickle down affect where progressives would be identified and beat incumbent, establishment Democrats to start reforming the party. For "doing nothing" he was the guy who put in the provision in the stimulus that the unemployed would get 100% of their salaries while they were laid off. I think Warren did a grave disservice to herself this election cycle if she plans on running again in 2024. Much of Bernie's progressive base are blaming her. If she had dropped out before Super Tuesday then I think she would have been an afterthought. Accusing Bernie of being sexist, fine, that's politics, but not letting it play out and knowingly being a progressive on a losing ticket when the centrists all rallied around 1 candidate leaves a nauseating taste. Whether true or not it had a real impact, it's that we'll never know. Now, I'm curious as to who Biden picks. Does he pick Warren? Will that help rally the progressives in vain attempt at unifying the party? Will he pick another centrist? If he really wants to go after my heart, which I think would be the right move, is to nominate Tulsi Gabbard. A lot of libertarians/conservatives/independents like her. There's not much mud Trump can sling at her. Being a veteran, minority and a woman I think is a huge opportunity. My realistic expectation? He nominates Hillary Clinton and this truly becomes a nightmare. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 10, 2020 12:09:49 GMT -5
I'm not a Constitutional scholar so correct me if I'm wrong. It's not the Senates job to let the President fill a Supreme Court seat. The Senate is under no obligation to accept the Presidents nomination. In fact, it's their job to approve a nomination or not under whatever reason they choose to. But more importantly... when you play political games; they come back to bite you in the ass later. Democrats were the first to launch wide scale filibusters against George W's nominees. The more controversial one they blocked was Miguel Estrada for the US Court of Appeals and internal memo's came to light that they blocked him because he was Latino and Democrats were worried the Republicans would eventually be the first to nominate a Latino judge to the Supreme Court. Democrats then got upset that Republicans followed their lead with Obama judges so they created the nuclear option which eliminated the filibuster for all nominations except the Supreme Court. This helped them short-term but was obviously going to come back to bite them in the ass. So Republicans refused to confirm Merrick Garland and had legs to stand on because Chuck Shumer made promises in 2007 that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during Bush's final year. THEN Democrats out of spite filibustered Neil M. Gorsuch, despite him being an extremely qualified nominee and who was praised by people on both sides. Because they did this, the Republicans ended the filibuster for Supreme Court Judges as well so all they needed was a simple majority. Every single domino fell because Democrats played political games and those same games got turned against them. Democrats didn't prevent GWB from filling Supreme Court seats, though. They filibustered a few of his most controversial nominations for lower courts. It's totally disanalogous to what McConnell did. But you're right - McConnell was totally within his constitutional rights to block that nomination, even if it went completely against precedent. But what sort of equilibrium is this, where parties can just deny the president of the opposing party their choices for the Supreme Court? The US constitutional system is built to require consensus, but how is consensus going to be achieved in an age when the parties are totally polarized. It's a problem of institutional design. I just hope it's not a fatal flaw... Wasn't saying it's the right way to do things and I wasn't comparing Democrats filibustering GW's nominees to what the Republicans did to Obama. There were a lot of events that took place and you skipped a lot of them. The Democrats kicked off the political games. The real person to blame for McConnell getting away with blocking the nomination is Schumer. He set the precedent and it was dumb of him to do so. We are screwed up right now and it's going to take people to elect the right politicians to get past this polarization. But it's not going to happen if we keep assigning negative motives to everything people do. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 10, 2020 12:13:23 GMT -5
I'm not sure why you think I am against social programs, I'm not, it's doable as long as people be realistic which is far from the extremists view. You can have social programs and democracy at the same time. I didn't think you were against them! I'm just responding to your comment about "growing up and becoming realists," which seems to contradict your own support for those programs - which are also the kind of programs supported by young people. To think that we are going to have an immediate change in social programs of the scale proposed by people like Sanders and Warren and generally by the far left is unrealistic in my view and is going to be a turn off to the independent voters as well as the Republicans. Your mileage may vary. |
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 10, 2020 12:30:39 GMT -5
You and I likely overlap a lot, except I really bristle at the argument that the DNC or some other cabal shut out Bernie. He has run twice, and twice he has gotten creamed in a democratic process. He, like Trump, has a firm grip on a solid minority. But even more than Trump, he has failed to convince the non-converts to go along with him. I was a Warren supporter, and I am far left. I like AOC. I would NEVER support Bernie. I think he is myopically focused on a few issues (that matter!) but he overlooks too many others. But worst of all, he seems entitled. Last cycle, he did well with some groups in the Dem tent, but really failed with others, like African Americans. In the four years since, he did nothing to expand his appeal. He never contacted Jim Clyburn, for example. That is arrogant, and it demonstrates really poor leadership. In the end, Bernie gas been around forever, and he has never accomplished anything. If we want progressive goals, we need people who can convince non-progressives. He couldn’t even convince all progressives! Biden is a big snooze, but I’ll take competence right now. Hopefully he picks a strong VP, elevates her to prominence, and charts a path towards the future. More than likely, but I'm interested how you could support AOC and Warren, but not Sanders? In 2016, Sanders asked Warren to run. She wouldn't, so he did. Then during this campaign she had the gaul to accuse him of being sexist. AOC is a staunch Bernie supporter as well. I firmly believe if she had dropped out when everyone else did (fully knowing she wasn't going to win a single state) that Bernie would have won Super Tuesday and then we'd have a different race right now. I admit I think 2020's Democratic process was more fairly balanced than 2016, but 2016 the party really put in the screws to him. People can cite Russian collusion all they want, but the content of the leaked emails don't change. They refused to hold debates outside of prime time. They purposefully rescheduled, cancelled, and left debate performances to go against the likes of the Walking Dead when it was still beating NFL ratings. Tulsi Gabbard resigned to support Sanders and she received nasty emails from establishment members who said they'd never donate to her campaigns ever again. Heck, Hillary Clinton tried to call an active major in the military whose a combat veteran a Russian puppet. In 2020, Bernie was doing extremely well with the latino/hispanic voter. That was his major calling card in his win in Nevada and what made all the other candidates fold. Biden's big strength was with the black vote and the southern Democrats all aligned with the former vice president of the beloved Barack Obama. I don't think there was really much Sanders could do. Jim Clayburn is very good friends with Joe Biden. I'm not excusing Sanders failures. I agree that he could have done more to appeal to more. I almost half wonder if he wasn't really running to win, but to espouse his ideals. I didn't really expect him to push much legislation, but with him at the top, I was hoping for a trickle down affect where progressives would be identified and beat incumbent, establishment Democrats to start reforming the party. For "doing nothing" he was the guy who put in the provision in the stimulus that the unemployed would get 100% of their salaries while they were laid off. I think Warren did a grave disservice to herself this election cycle if she plans on running again in 2024. Much of Bernie's progressive base are blaming her. If she had dropped out before Super Tuesday then I think she would have been an afterthought. Accusing Bernie of being sexist, fine, that's politics, but not letting it play out and knowingly being a progressive on a losing ticket when the centrists all rallied around 1 candidate leaves a nauseating taste. Whether true or not it had a real impact, it's that we'll never know. Now, I'm curious as to who Biden picks. Does he pick Warren? Will that help rally the progressives in vain attempt at unifying the party? Will he pick another centrist? If he really wants to go after my heart, which I think would be the right move, is to nominate Tulsi Gabbard. A lot of libertarians/conservatives/independents like her. There's not much mud Trump can sling at her. Being a veteran, minority and a woman I think is a huge opportunity. My realistic expectation? He nominates Hillary Clinton and this truly becomes a nightmare. I think AOC and Warren are — despite the surface — astute, practical politicians. They want the most progressive policies, but they can compromise. To me, that is key. I want a maximalist health care policy, but I’m not a leftist who decries Obamacare. Sure it is flawed, but it made a historical huge shift: it injected government into healthcare. Now, to go back, you gave to take away millions of people’s healthcare. Even people (and governors) who were against it have balked at that. I can, in my more temperate moments, take the long view. Progressive positions win at some point. Gay marriage is a great example. Haters gunna hate, but they could never stop it forever. It was inevitable. Bernie is dogmatic. He would rather lose and be pure than give an inch. His supporters can blame Warren... his supporters always blame someone. But twice he couldn’t get the votes. Why not applaud the process. Polls show Warren’s supporters likely would have split, not gone to Bernie. I gave a lot of money to Warren, was all in. I would support Biden over Sanders. I’d support virtually any Dem over Bernie. No way on Tulsi. She is nuts. She is a Putin acolyte. I’d be shocked if it was Warren. She adds nothing. I think there are a few obvious choices: Kamala Harris, who I think is awful (her campaign was a disaster), but is a young, mixed race woman with decent experience. Amy Klobuchar: a strong debater, hugely popular in the midwest, with an incredible personal story. Her spotty history as a prosecutor might be kind of an insult to the African Americans who helped Biden come back. Stacy Abrams: great campaigner, representative of “New South,” might actually put Georgia in play. Fires up base. Only clear weakness is inexperience, not vetted on national stage. Sally Yates: brilliant, “non-politician” and goes directly for Trump’s corruption. Weakness include “who the hell is that” problem. Michelle Lujan Grisham: Latina governor (so executive experience) and former Congresswoman (national experience). Could excite latino voters. Again has the “who’s that” problem. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 10, 2020 12:39:28 GMT -5
I'm all for social programs, but I'm not for expanding Government before we fix and clean up the crap we have now. For example, our welfare system sucks (yes thank god we have it for many, but that doesn't mean it's not broken). I don't want to get rid of it, but I want to fix it. I want it to be set up in such a way that someone doesn't have to choose between job advancement and getting reduced pay because they cross some stupid monetary threshold that acts more like a glass ceiling than anything else. I want to hear a message coming from Democrats that people are empowered to better their lives and they aren't simply victims that have no chance. No it's not a pull yourself up by the bootstraps message; it's a message YOU as an individual have the ability to make something of yourself. Obama was supposed to be hope and change and instead he pushed a message of victims and no chance. If you keep telling groups of people they have no chance and the system is rigged and you can't get ahead, you know what happens? The vast majority of them don't. Our politicians do nothing to try and fix systems we have. It's maddening then they want to add more.
I do NOT want single payer health care. Stop telling me the rest of the Western World has it and act like they have no issues. Stop acting like a diverse country of 330m people is comparable to a Country with 8m people who are mostly the same race and culture. Stop acting like most of the innovation doesn't come out of this countries system and that it will continue that way when the Government takes it over. I'm fairly certain the crappy US system that everyone seems to hate now has the most ICU beds and most ventilators per capita of any country in the World. The US was arguably the most prepared country for a pandemic according to a study in 2019. Does that mean I like our current system and think there doesn't need to be fixes to it? of course not, our current system needs to be fixed, but it doesn't need to be torn down and replaced. . Profit incentives in health care are actually very important. It creates more of it and it creates innovation. There needs to be fixes. On the insurance side, MassHealth is a pretty good example of a system that can fill in gaps in coverage both from a Coverage and affordability standpoint. I'll spare the details, but there's no reason (other than they don't know about it) for a person in Massachusetts to not have affordable health coverage. Both Republicans and Democrats agree drug prices need to be lowered. Democrats seem to want to just fix the price and have the Government set it. Republicans want to fix the patent loopholes and create more competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 10, 2020 12:41:49 GMT -5
Tulsi will never be Biden's VP choice, but to call her a Putin acolyte is laughable and shows you've drank the smear campaign Kool-aide.
|
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 10, 2020 12:50:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 10, 2020 13:05:56 GMT -5
I've listened to Tulsi probably more than any other politician talk at length in hours long conversations and I've listened to her talk about all these things. This Opinion piece is trash. But it doesn't really matter, you can think what you want of her it doesn't affect me and Democrats have successfully spread their smears. Conveniently after she quit the DNC to speak out about how the DNC was actively working against Bernie which is an indisputable fact. |
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 10, 2020 13:16:11 GMT -5
I've listened to Tulsi probably more than any other politician talk at length in hours long conversations and I've listened to her talk about all these things. This Opinion piece is trash. But it doesn't really matter, you can think what you want of her it doesn't affect me and Democrats have successfully spread their smears. Conveniently after she quit the DNC to speak out about how the DNC was actively working against Bernie which is an indisputable fact. Well, it is irrelevant because she is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Apr 10, 2020 13:36:36 GMT -5
More than likely, but I'm interested how you could support AOC and Warren, but not Sanders? In 2016, Sanders asked Warren to run. She wouldn't, so he did. Then during this campaign she had the gaul to accuse him of being sexist. AOC is a staunch Bernie supporter as well. I firmly believe if she had dropped out when everyone else did (fully knowing she wasn't going to win a single state) that Bernie would have won Super Tuesday and then we'd have a different race right now. I admit I think 2020's Democratic process was more fairly balanced than 2016, but 2016 the party really put in the screws to him. People can cite Russian collusion all they want, but the content of the leaked emails don't change. They refused to hold debates outside of prime time. They purposefully rescheduled, cancelled, and left debate performances to go against the likes of the Walking Dead when it was still beating NFL ratings. Tulsi Gabbard resigned to support Sanders and she received nasty emails from establishment members who said they'd never donate to her campaigns ever again. Heck, Hillary Clinton tried to call an active major in the military whose a combat veteran a Russian puppet. In 2020, Bernie was doing extremely well with the latino/hispanic voter. That was his major calling card in his win in Nevada and what made all the other candidates fold. Biden's big strength was with the black vote and the southern Democrats all aligned with the former vice president of the beloved Barack Obama. I don't think there was really much Sanders could do. Jim Clayburn is very good friends with Joe Biden. I'm not excusing Sanders failures. I agree that he could have done more to appeal to more. I almost half wonder if he wasn't really running to win, but to espouse his ideals. I didn't really expect him to push much legislation, but with him at the top, I was hoping for a trickle down affect where progressives would be identified and beat incumbent, establishment Democrats to start reforming the party. For "doing nothing" he was the guy who put in the provision in the stimulus that the unemployed would get 100% of their salaries while they were laid off. I think Warren did a grave disservice to herself this election cycle if she plans on running again in 2024. Much of Bernie's progressive base are blaming her. If she had dropped out before Super Tuesday then I think she would have been an afterthought. Accusing Bernie of being sexist, fine, that's politics, but not letting it play out and knowingly being a progressive on a losing ticket when the centrists all rallied around 1 candidate leaves a nauseating taste. Whether true or not it had a real impact, it's that we'll never know. Now, I'm curious as to who Biden picks. Does he pick Warren? Will that help rally the progressives in vain attempt at unifying the party? Will he pick another centrist? If he really wants to go after my heart, which I think would be the right move, is to nominate Tulsi Gabbard. A lot of libertarians/conservatives/independents like her. There's not much mud Trump can sling at her. Being a veteran, minority and a woman I think is a huge opportunity. My realistic expectation? He nominates Hillary Clinton and this truly becomes a nightmare. I think AOC and Warren are — despite the surface — astute, practical politicians. They want the most progressive policies, but they can compromise. To me, that is key. I want a maximalist health care policy, but I’m not a leftist who decries Obamacare. Sure it is flawed, but it made a historical huge shift: it injected government into healthcare. Now, to go back, you gave to take away millions of people’s healthcare. Even people (and governors) who were against it have balked at that. I can, in my more temperate moments, take the long view. Progressive positions win at some point. Gay marriage is a great example. Haters gunna hate, but they could never stop it forever. It was inevitable. Bernie is dogmatic. He would rather lose and be pure than give an inch. His supporters can blame Warren... his supporters always blame someone. But twice he couldn’t get the votes. Why not applaud the process. Polls show Warren’s supporters likely would have split, not gone to Bernie. I gave a lot of money to Warren, was all in. I would support Biden over Sanders. I’d support virtually any Dem over Bernie. No way on Tulsi. She is nuts. She is a Putin acolyte. I’d be shocked if it was Warren. She adds nothing. I think there are a few obvious choices: Kamala Harris, who I think is awful (her campaign was a disaster), but is a young, mixed race woman with decent experience. Amy Klobuchar: a strong debater, hugely popular in the midwest, with an incredible personal story. Her spotty history as a prosecutor might be kind of an insult to the African Americans who helped Biden come back. Stacy Abrams: great campaigner, representative of “New South,” might actually put Georgia in play. Fires up base. Only clear weakness is inexperience, not vetted on national stage. Sally Yates: brilliant, “non-politician” and goes directly for Trump’s corruption. Weakness include “who the hell is that” problem. Michelle Lujan Grisham: Latina governor (so executive experience) and former Congresswoman (national experience). Could excite latino voters. Again has the “who’s that” problem. I honestly don't get how a progressive could favor Biden. You might as well vote for a Republican. You've taken not giving an inch and went all in on the other end of the spectrum. I'm not a fan of getting information from memes, but this isn't wrong. ![]() pbs.twimg.com/media/D5CSWFRUIAAzbTN.jpg[/img] I get America is a system built on compromises, but sometimes you just need to push forward. Biden is endorsed by medical companies, why would he negotiate anything that could cost his donors anything financially? What's the forward thinking about Biden and his platform? And again, he's being accused of fingering a woman without her consent. As far as Kamala Harris. She should never run again. She's a disgrace. The Supreme Court had to tell her to release prisoners in California because they were overcrowded and it was inhumane. The opinion piece on Tulsi Gabbard is beyond a hit piece. She wanted to stop a war with Syria so she met with Assad. She has called him a dictator. What she did was no different than meeting with the likes of Kim Jong-un. Nancy Pelosi has gone and met with Assad before. |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Apr 10, 2020 13:36:55 GMT -5
I've listened to Tulsi probably more than any other politician talk at length in hours long conversations and I've listened to her talk about all these things. This Opinion piece is trash. But it doesn't really matter, you can think what you want of her it doesn't affect me and Democrats have successfully spread their smears. Conveniently after she quit the DNC to speak out about how the DNC was actively working against Bernie which is an indisputable fact. Well, it is irrelevant because she is irrelevant. Yeah, that's fair. |
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 10, 2020 14:03:02 GMT -5
I think AOC and Warren are — despite the surface — astute, practical politicians. They want the most progressive policies, but they can compromise. To me, that is key. I want a maximalist health care policy, but I’m not a leftist who decries Obamacare. Sure it is flawed, but it made a historical huge shift: it injected government into healthcare. Now, to go back, you gave to take away millions of people’s healthcare. Even people (and governors) who were against it have balked at that. I can, in my more temperate moments, take the long view. Progressive positions win at some point. Gay marriage is a great example. Haters gunna hate, but they could never stop it forever. It was inevitable. Bernie is dogmatic. He would rather lose and be pure than give an inch. His supporters can blame Warren... his supporters always blame someone. But twice he couldn’t get the votes. Why not applaud the process. Polls show Warren’s supporters likely would have split, not gone to Bernie. I gave a lot of money to Warren, was all in. I would support Biden over Sanders. I’d support virtually any Dem over Bernie. No way on Tulsi. She is nuts. She is a Putin acolyte. I’d be shocked if it was Warren. She adds nothing. I think there are a few obvious choices: Kamala Harris, who I think is awful (her campaign was a disaster), but is a young, mixed race woman with decent experience. Amy Klobuchar: a strong debater, hugely popular in the midwest, with an incredible personal story. Her spotty history as a prosecutor might be kind of an insult to the African Americans who helped Biden come back. Stacy Abrams: great campaigner, representative of “New South,” might actually put Georgia in play. Fires up base. Only clear weakness is inexperience, not vetted on national stage. Sally Yates: brilliant, “non-politician” and goes directly for Trump’s corruption. Weakness include “who the hell is that” problem. Michelle Lujan Grisham: Latina governor (so executive experience) and former Congresswoman (national experience). Could excite latino voters. Again has the “who’s that” problem. I honestly don't get how a progressive could favor Biden. You might as well vote for a Republican. You've taken not giving an inch and went all in on the other end of the spectrum. I'm not a fan of getting information from memes, but this isn't wrong. ![]() pbs.twimg.com/media/D5CSWFRUIAAzbTN.jpg[/img] I get America is a system built on compromises, but sometimes you just need to push forward. Biden is endorsed by medical companies, why would he negotiate anything that could cost his donors anything financially? What's the forward thinking about Biden and his platform? And again, he's being accused of fingering a woman without her consent. As far as Kamala Harris. She should never run again. She's a disgrace. The Supreme Court had to tell her to release prisoners in California because they were overcrowded and it was inhumane. The opinion piece on Tulsi Gabbard is beyond a hit piece. She wanted to stop a war with Syria so she met with Assad. She has called him a dictator. What she did was no different than meeting with the likes of Kim Jong-un. Nancy Pelosi has gone and met with Assad before. [/quote] [br ———————————————————————————————— ]Here’s the thing: I am not sure we will survive Trump’s first term, much less a second. I would basically vote for a potato if I knew that potato would have a Center left cabinet, would fund government agencies, would talk like a President, and would appoint a good replacement for RBG. I am still really confused by people who act like Sanders was cheated or somehow Biden doesn’t have a base, too. I mean, Sanders never got over. He actually lost support from 2016. I get being disappointed, and I’ve been there. I worked for Dean, and Kerry was a real downer. But I never felt cheated, even though Dean was an outsider. It was what it was. I certainly hoped like hell Kerry would win. Counter question: how can a progressive NOT support Biden against Trump? Haven’t we learned from as far back as Bush v. Gore that the “there’s no difference” argument is a huge mistake? Here’s the thing: that is an argument of privilege. For me, as a rich, straight, white guy with a very secure job, there is really no difference day to day. In fact, it may be that I get richer under a Republican. But I don’t vote for me.... I vote for people in need, here and overseas. And for them, the difference between the GOP and Dems is huge. So, yeah, Biden won’t pass single-payer, but he won’t allow further erosion of Obamacare. He won’t allow Roe to be overturned. etc. Also... who knows? LBJ was a Texan and a racist, but he pushed some of the greatest progressive legislation in our history. |
|
|
