2020 Democratic Party primary thread

[Jaguar]

The Democratic leaders who convinced GHWB to do it also thought it was a huge coup. They knew getting him to break his promise would really hurt him and the Republicans in the long run.

Another case of so-called leaders putting party above country.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Another case of so-called leaders putting party above country.

Almost every party leader is about party before country, unfortunately. They just lie to themselves that what is best for the party is best for the country.

Of course, most party leaders are more about personal power more than even party success or country success.

 

[á´…eparted]

Public education is a good example of something that, at present, is largely a failure. We've been losing ground to other countries for years and costs are out of control. Much of it is a near set of localized monopolies with heavy union representation that demands more and more things that are unsustainable - at least in some states.

I'm not surprised to hear your critical of unions. Do you know why teachers by and large are ineffectual in the US? Not because they suck, but because they are wildly underpaid, particularly for how hard the work is. The school systems are underfunded and misfunded. Why? Because the right wing has been chipping away at it for decades, and the moderates think schools can be managed and checked through standardized testing and no-tolerance type mentalities within school administrations. Schools should not, and cannot be treated like a business. If schools were funded more, teachers paid more, proper benefits given, students were invested in more, and infrastructure funded more it would be a great deal better. Private schools are not the answer, and the reason the right pushes for privatization so much is because it allows local areas to run them as they want. It sounds nice on paper, but schools cannot work without broad oversight. As I'm sure you're aware, Finland has one of the best school systems in the world, and that is what everyone should be following to mirror. Asia is not a good model to follow because it places students under extreme stress and pressure in a almost darwinian manner with too much of a reliance on singular tests and standardization.

Really though, one of the first things that needs to be done is teachers salary needs to be significantly higher across the board. That will allow teachers to fund their classrooms better, be better rested, and be compensated for how difficult and extremely important the job is. The budget space for this can 100% be found whether or not you think it can or not.

PIn my state, the average age of retirement is 55. Why is that necessary or appropriate? Why encourage younger teachers to retire early with plum retirement plans? People are fully capable of working into their 60s and likely are happier when they do so. Our colleges are great because the system remains competitive internationally but prices are way out of control much like health care.

Why is retirement at 55 bad? Seriously? Why do people need to work for such a large portion of their lives? We have one life, and why on earth does it have to be spent working for so damn long? Life should be something to be enjoyed, and not everyone finds joy in work. Sometimes people want to do something else. Just because the retirement age is set to 55 doesn't mean everyone will want to leave at that moment (and if they do then then great for them). The puritan rooted mindset of working yourself to the bone as proof of grit and maturity is bullshit. Also, college is not great because it's competitive. If anything the quality of colleges have flatlined or gone down because of school administration glut and lack of oversight. It's also gone down because colleges have to accomidate increasingly for weakened public education when entering the system. Part of the reason colleges in the US have a reputation for quality is from the research programs they conduct. That is competitive to a large extent because that is how acquiring grant funding, but due to funding reductions over time it's becoming excessively competitive which is choking off basic science research (basic meaning fundemental/root/exploratory) which is essential for future innovation, and it's driving science research to be excessively focused on profit-minded applications, which runs against how research needs to be done (if taken to far). For the most part though, this funding doesn't get returned to the students at the undergraduate level. Adjunct positions are decreasing in stability, pay, and respect, while they increase in demand which is lowering the quality of student education. You seem to broadly think competition is a good thing- it's not.

We've taken NASA which started out as an incredible national asset has turned into a kind of procurement machine rather than doing any real development or innovation.

This is just flat out wrong, although I can understand why you think this (and why most people would). NASA was, and continues to be one of the greatest things this country has ever created, and is essential to space and physics research, now more than ever really. Just for one example, the James Webb space telescope is due for launch in a year or two and is to replace hubble. The depth and breath of insight and material we will learn through it is staggering. It's not "flashy" like sending a person to the moon (which is part of the reason why people think much less of NASA, cause it can't really be flashy anymore), but that absolutely does not mean it's ineffectual. Further, the areas where NASA has been reduced in quality has been due to republication legislation and choaked off funding. There's a pattern there- defunding making things work less. For the right that's often the point: break it through defunding, then claim government doesn't work when they were the ones that intentionally caused it in the first place. This allows for the private sector (which is wildly underregulated) to pick up the slack and continue the privitzation cycle. SpaceX and others like them are great, but they are meant to run in parallel to NASA, not replace it.

I know you work in business and one of your earlier anxieties in life was not having enough money, which is why a lot of your opinions are the way they are. You need to understand though that a business mindset and all that comes with it does not work in all areas.

Social security started out as a great idea and made sense when it was conceived during the great depression but it's it's a huge tax burden and should probably be restructured. Why does everyone need to participate in a forced retirement savings plan that gets 1.5% return every year?

Because, oh I don't know, compassion for the human condition and how hard being alive is? It needs to be improved, not gutted or replaced with something private.

 

[Jaguar]

Almost every party leader is about party before country, unfortunately. They just lie to themselves that what is best for the party is best for the country.

Of course, most party leaders are more about personal power more than even party success or country success.

My idea of 'personal power' tends to differ greatly from others I've encountered. It's also one of the reasons I prefer animals over people.

 

[ceecee]

Public education is a good example of something that, at present, is largely a failure. We've been losing ground to other countries for years and costs are out of control. Much of it is a near set of localized monopolies with heavy union representation that demands more and more things that are unsustainable - at least in some states.

Did you know that many of the countries that consistently have stellar education are also unionized/have collective bargaining agreements? That the teachers were cream of the crop students and given an education equal to the task of educating the nations children? I'm always curious if people using this argument have ever been to and seen countries that provide education far superior to the US. I've seen children and classrooms in Finland, the ethnic homogeneity argument is also bullshit, by the way. It seems the knee jerk reaction is to introduce marketplace competition into public schools - obviously not an answer. If you only measure statistics, you miss the rest of the picture. Perhaps they prepare kids to learn, not just how to take a standardized test, better than the US.

I'm sure you will have many arguments to throw at me on this topic. All I can tell you is what we have here is not working and more of the same - I got mine, fuck you - attitude so prevalent in this country is not the answer. It has nothing to do with throwing money at it, that doesn't work because politicians see to it that public schools don't see it. It's the collective uncaring about the education of this country - from I don't have kids I don't want to pay taxes for public schools to - backing austerity and for profit charter schools.

 

[Jaguar]

he really is just an old dude railing at the camera and shaking his hand a lot

Bernie.

Try as he might, he's not presidential. He's an activist. He should stay in his lane and leave the heavy lifting to others.

In Chicago, Sanders threw himself into activism—civil rights, economic justice, volunteering, organizing. “I received more of an education off campus than I did in the classroom,” Sanders says. By his 23rd birthday, Sanders had worked for a meatpackers union, marched for civil rights in Washington D.C., joined the university socialists and been arrested at a civil rights demonstration. He delivered jeremiads to young crowds. The police called him an outside agitator, Sanders said. He was a sloppy student, and the dean asked him to take a year off. He inspired his classmates. “He knows how to talk to people now,” said Robin Kaufman, a student who knew Sanders in 1960s Chicago, “and he knew how to do it then.” He was a radical before it was cool.

He also met regularly with the Young Peoples Socialist League in the student center, where students talked about nuclear disarmament, former Socialist Party Presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs, the lessons of the Russian revolution, and how to implement socialism, though his vision did not match up with the already faltering Soviet experiment.

 

[ceecee]

I think part of the problem is that corporations have their tentacles in everything. They run cable networks, for instance, and try and push an agenda more favorable to business as usual, in my opinion. They lobby lawmakers to control the laws that are being written. Do either of those propositions sound farfetched to you?

Means TV | Means TV

I give them $20/mo. Partially because I love the campaign ads and other commercials they make but I have a soft spot for my hometown and people from it doing great things like this. And I want to watch this news. But there is LOTS of great independent, non-profit news, I follow all of these on Twitter.

Texas Tribune
Pro Publica
High Country News
The Intercept
The Marshall Project
The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism
Chicago Defender

Pharma lobbyists wrote Medicare Part D. It also makes it illegal for Medicare or their recipients to negotiate drug prices. It's also why rx costs have skyrocketed since. But you won't hear GOP or most Dems mention it as they profit, immensely, from the pharma cartels.

Medicare Part D For All is also illegal due to the current Part D laws - it would be enormously helpful if people who) not in healthcare admin and b) not over 65 to inform themselves about these things as they are front and center political arguments.

A Political History of Medicare and Prescription Drug Coverage

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

A lot of wealth can also mean that the person cares more about his wealth than the country. Many billionaires seem obsessed with getting more than other billionaires, so there is never enough. Bloomberg did a 10x increase in his wealth since the Great Recession and doesn't seem to be limiting his wealth acquisition.

If some person promised that a billionaire had to support some issue or his fortune would be gone, how many would cave rather than become poor?

Billionaires are not gods. Some worked hard but most everyone used some trick, illegal acts, bribes, collusion, etc. to get ahead.

Also, who cares if a billionaire can't be bought (if true) if his values are contrary to yours? The top 3 donors in 18 were Bloomberg, Adelson, and Steyer. Bloomberg and Steyer bought the House in an attempt to impeach Trump. Adelson funds Republicans in order to buy continued support for lower taxes and Israel. If the billionaire is Bloomberg, who hates the 99% and thinks he can buy everyone, this isn't a good thing.

The entire reason we had limits on money in politics until Citizens United was to stop the rich from buying elections or buying candidates.

Ok fine. But then they say that Bloomberg is different because he has a pure heart. What would you say then?

 

[ceecee]

Ok fine. But then they say that Bloomberg is different because he has a pure heart. What would you say then?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

His tax-hiking positions—which you clearly have never read—are not even close to being a Republican.

You'd vote for him even though he wants to take what's yours? (Now you're just going to claim that I'm putting words in your mouth; I notice you tend to word things in such a way that some level of ambiguity exists. Perhaps this is so that you can maintain plausible deniability. This would explain why you refuse to clarify your statements or give straight answers to questions).

 

[Jaguar]

You'd vote for him

Who?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Who?

Here we go. You know what, I have more important things to do.

Bloomberg.

 

[Jaguar]

Bloomberg.

^ Liar.

I have no interest in Mike Bloomberg. Vote for him if you want.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Liar.

I meant in the general election.

 

[Jaguar]

I meant in the general election.

Liar.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Liar.

no, you're the puppet.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Bernie.

Try as he might, he's not presidential. He's an activist. He should stay in his lane and leave the heavy lifting to others.

You have a way of cherry picking when you quote other people. You deliberately removed the part where I mentioned Bernie directly after the comment about Biden.

 

[Jaguar]

You deliberately removed the part where I mentioned Bernie directly after the comment about Biden.

To make a point, damn straight. Now focus on the point. Or do you want to keep avoiding it?
X is some old guy waving his hands, while ignoring another old guy waving his hands, doesn't make for a believable critique of a debate.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

To make a point, damn straight. Now focus on the point. Or do you want to keep avoiding it?
X is some old guy waving his hands, while ignoring another old guy waving his hands, doesn't make for a believable critique of a debate.

You just did it again. A lot of your "point making" involves omitting others' points to reframe their posts or arguments as looking weaker than they are.

Weak.

 

[Jaguar]

You just did it again.

When you're ready to get back on topic, let me know.