2020 Democratic Party primary thread

[rav3n]

The reaction of the audience was interesting, especially when paired with the price of the tickets. Without knowing this while watching the debate, you knew it after they boo'd and cheered the strangest things. Pete was a loud-mouthed dick.

offered sponsorship options ranging from $1,750 to $3,200, which included admission to the debate as well as access to other gatherings surrounding the event, according to a local news station,

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

So there you go. What ideas do you think will address the core issues brought up in that? How about Medicare part D for all? Make it a start - an experiment to see how some of this works?

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?

I think one thing that is extremely important is getting people in the government (and increasing the influence of the ones already involved) who aren't endorsed and "vetted" as being favorable to the agenda of the corporations. Problem is, they'll receive more negative coverage through cable networks and so forth.

Who do you think is endorsed or "vetted" by as being friendly to a corporate agenda? Butiigieg? Bloomberg? Biden? Sanders? Klobuchar?

Regarding the radical nature of some of the proposals being floated about, when you negotiate a salary, do you start with the lowest amount you would possibly tolerate, or do you start with something higher?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

This is the first debate this time that I've watched start-to-finish.

-I thought Bernie and Warren came out looking the best.

-Biden did alright but I can see why SNL took the angle they did with their parody of him, he really is just an old dude railing at the camera and shaking his hand a lot (the image people have tried to pain with Bernie, only Bernie sounds more meaningful when he rails and shakes his hand, whereas last night Biden often just tried to take credit for other candidates' achievements ["I wrote that!"]), because I think he thinks that's how to sound and look presidential, and gosh darnit it's his turn to run, how dare these whippersnappers and crazy socialists run against him?

-Amy sounded like a robot.

-Tom Steyer's tie looks like his hipster son made him wear it on a lost bet. It was fun watching Warren plant a hatchet in Bloomberg not once but twice.

-Pete lost me the second he started pitching his website and asking for donations. It was a tacky way to ask and not the place.

-Some of the mod questions were basic, catty fluff, like (paraphrasing) asking a candidate are they going to drop out if they do poorly in SC. What the fuck relevance does that hold in a debate, where questions should be regarding policy and worldviews of the candidates?

-Bloomberg played the 9/11 card lol.

-I'm surprised how much everyone seems to be downplaying Bernie's marijuana position. That was pretty bold, no cautiously dancing around it like democrats usually do (as Amy did directly after Bernie had spoken about legalizing on day one).

-The only place Bloomberg really sounded strong was in his criticisms of Trump's handling of coronavirus. Kudos there.

 

[highlander]

This is the first debate this time that I've watched start-to-finish. -I thought Bernie and Warren came out looking the best. -Biden did alright but I can see why SNL took the angle they did with their parody of him, he really is just an old dude railing at the camera and shaking his hand a lot (the image people have tried to pain with Bernie, only Bernie sounds more meaningful when he rails and shakes his hand),because I think he thinks that's how to sound and look presidential, and gosh darnit it's his turn to run, how dare these whippersnappers and crazy socialists run against him? -Amy sounded like a robot. -Tom Steyer's tie looks like his hipster son made him wear it on a lost bet. It was fun watching Warren plant a hatchet in Bloomberg not once but twice. -Pete lost me the second he started pitching his website and asking for donations. It was a tacky way to ask and not the place. -Some of the mod questions were basic, catty fluff, like (paraphrasing) asking a candidate are they going to drop out if they do poorly in SC. What the fuck relevance does that hold in a debate, where questions should be regarding policy and worldviews of the candidates? -Bloomberg played the 9/11 card lol. -I'm surprised how much everyone seems to be downplaying Bernie's marijuana position. That was pretty bold, no cautiously dancing around it like democrats usually do (as Amy did directly after Bernie had spoken about legalizing on day one). -The only place Bloomberg really sounded strong was in his criticisms of Trump's handling of coronavirus. Kudos there.

Interestring in that we had virtually the opposite opinion. Bernie clearly came out on the bottom for no other reason than he was targeted with what seemed like factual criticisms and didnt have believable rebuttals. Warren was clearly less hostile and offensive than in the previous debate but her one jab at Bloomberg was a cheap shot with little evidence supporting it (hearsay). She also repeated a couple of the same things from the last debate which seemed like retreading old ground and they fell flat because Bloomberg had an effective response and ended up shutting her up. I find her less credible every time she makes a cheap shot and indulges in rhetoric. I can see how she was a championship debater in high school but her style of rhetoric doesnt work on me because she comes across as petty, without integrity, a bit of a zealot and focused on the wrong things Biden came across as weak I dont know how much of it was his stutter but he just seemed to lose track of what he was saying at important moments leaving one less than inspired in his confidence. To me, Klobuchar and Buttigieg came out the strongest in important ways. Though Bloomberg could have been more polished, he had great content and examples. I was inspired by both him and Klobuchar that they wouldnt just talk. They would get things done. I have not been a Klobuchar fan but she kind of won me over last night.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Interestring in that we had virtually the opposite opinion. Bernie clearly came out on the bottom for no other reason than he was targeted with what seemed like factual criticisms and didnt have believable rebuttals. Warren was clearly less hostile and offensive than in the previous debate but her one jab at Bloomberg was a cheap shot with little evidence supporting it (hearsay). She also repeated a couple of the same things from the last debate which seemed like retreading old ground and they fell flat because Bloomberg had an effective response and ended up shutting her up. I find her less credible every time she makes a cheap shot and indulges in rhetoric. I can see how she was a championship debater in high school but her style of rhetoric doesnt work on me because she comes across as petty, without integrity, a bit of a zealot and focused on the wrong things Biden came across as weak I dont know how much of it was his stutter but he just seemed to lose track of what he was saying at important moments leaving one less than inspired in his confidence. To me, Klobuchar and Buttigieg came out the strongest in important ways. Though Bloomberg could have been more polished, he had great content and examples. I was inspired by both him and Klobuchar that they wouldnt just talk. They would get things done. I have not been a Klobuchar fan but she kind of won me over last night.

The multiple attacks on him out of the gate reeked of desperation. It reminded me of how the other republicans became increasingly desperate against trump in 2016. This is why I think Bernie will come out of this one looking even stronger than before. The more they attack him, the more fired up his base becomes, and I think people on the fence notice too. Just spoke to my parents. They were very cold about Bernie in 2016, and up until a few weeks ago they were for Pete or Amy. All of a sudden they're on the Bernie bandwagon and railing about how the establishment and other candidates are desperate to stop him. The attacks on him are likely speeding more peoples' conversion, but not necessarily in the direction his opponents intended. Best way to deal with a frontrunner is to ignore them, IMO. Warren did this best, hence why I thought she came out looking better than some of the others last night.

I found Bloomberg especially cringy when the topic of the black demographic came up early on. Usually when Bernie mentions ethnicities, he is referring to them alongside other ethnicities and speaking of building a coalition, rather than speaking of them as a valuable demographic so he can brag about what he did for "them". This is how Bernie will win the youth vote across multiple ethnic demographics. The solid black demographic is a myth. It's all about generational lines, and age demographics will determine this race. Bernie seemed to preach the message of unity best last night, and I don't think that will be lost on a lot of voters, particularly the younger ones who are more apprehensive about the fear mongering rhetoric the other candidates used against Bernie most of the night.

 

[Coriolis]

Yeah let the government fix it. They have such a good track record with purchasing things economically and smart procurement.

By this "logic", we should privatize fire and police departments; perhaps department of defense, too. Despite the known issues with waste and mismangement in DoD, there is a general consensus that certain functions or services should not be left to the profit motive. Many of us put medical care and education in this category.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

What would you say to a hypothetical person who trusts Bloomberg because his wealth means he can't be bought?

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.

 

[highlander]

By this "logic", we should privatize fire and police departments; perhaps department of defense, too. Despite the known issues with waste and mismangement in DoD, there is a general consensus that certain functions or services should not be left to the profit motive. Many of us put medical care and education in this category.

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. In 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 that? 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. Is that the right direction? Meanwhile private commercial efforts like Blue Origin and SpaceX continue to move forward. I just don't have a lot of confidence in government in running things and nationalizing anything in particular always ends up creating a huge cost burdens. 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?

 

[highlander]

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?

I think one thing that is extremely important is getting people in the government (and increasing the influence of the ones already involved) who aren't endorsed and "vetted" as being favorable to the agenda of the corporations. Problem is, they'll receive more negative coverage through cable networks and so forth.

Who do you think is endorsed or "vetted" by as being friendly to a corporate agenda? Butiigieg? Bloomberg? Biden? Sanders? Klobuchar?

Regarding the radical nature of some of the proposals being floated about, when you negotiate a salary, do you start with the lowest amount you would possibly tolerate, or do you start with something higher?

No those things aren't far fetched. Ever watch the Aviator and what Juan Tripp did to retain hold over international travel and keep TWA out of it? Maybe if we had better non-biased news networks that ran 24/7 (rather than just Fox and CNN), we'd have an alternative that would be help the nation. People can read what they want though and there are plenty of news outlets that are less biased - Bloomberg being one of them.

 

[Jaguar]

He is also totally a Republican.

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

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

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

He's a classic Rockefeller Republican.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Because people wouldn't know a president, from thier ass from a hole the ground.

That's why we currently have Trump in office.

 

[Jaguar]

He's a classic Rockefeller Republican.

Which means nothing when dealing with the current and future tax positions of the Republican party. His positions would not gel with theirs at all. On a side note - GHWB got has head handed to him for breaking his promise to the people: "Read my lips, no new taxes."

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Which means nothing when dealing with the current and future tax positions of the Republican party. His positions would not gel with theirs at all. On a side note - GHWB got has head handed to him for breaking his promise to the people: "Read my lips, no new taxes."

Not really, the vote was split by Perot. He might have won in a 2 way race with Clinton.

 

[Jaguar]

Not really, the vote was split by Perot. He might have won in a 2 way race with Clinton.

Yes, really. GHWB admitted it and regretted it. I wasn't talking about any election. You are.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Yes, really. GHWB admitted it and regretted it. I wasn't talking about any election. You are.

My apologies, I thought you were alluding that his tax hikes led to losing re-election.

 

[Jaguar]

My apologies, I thought you were alluding that his tax hikes led to losing re-election.

He pissed off a lot of people in his own party. But we're getting off course here. My initial response was about someone claiming Bloomberg is "totally Republican." Bloomberg's proposals raise taxes even more than Biden's.

 

[Virtual ghost]

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. In 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 that? We've turned 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. Is that the right direction? Meanwhile private commercial efforts like Blue Origin and SpaceX continue to move forward. I just don't have a lot of confidence in government in running things and nationalizing anything in particular always ends up creating a huge cost burdens. 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?

If I may I would like to add something out of the box on this, since I think there are some fundamental flaws in this. Which another American will not point out.



Yes, there is a certain losing of ground in this arena to the other nations, but in my book this is exactly because there is too much focus on money and individualism. First of all your system isn't paying college tuition to students in mass. What means that many can't afford to go to college and with this you are locking out a fair chunk of people who have academic talent from achieving anything in that sphere. Therefore since you don't carry your people all the way you will probably have worse end results next to someone who does. I got out of college with 0$ in debt and that means that I can right away start to take life fully and take away opportunities of young people in USA. While I will work for less since here everything is cheaper, I have no debt and medical bills can't crush me. Therefore the odds are that on global level someone like me will be more competitive. I mean this isn't about me, but pointing the principle.




But there are more complicated factors here. In USA top schools seem to educate very large amount of students that are foreigners, however in doing so you have not enough space for your own students. In my country in the case that we have so many foreign students as in USA there would be large riots by students and nationalists ... and after that the ruling party that introduced this would lose elections all over the map. In other words probably the main reason why the college prices jumped so much is exactly because you are educating rich kids from all over the world, or talented kids that are here with some kind of corporate scholarship. However your own people can't match that and they are left to survive in this gloomy economy where everything is getting outsourced. While what is extra absurd now there are tens of millions of people out there panicking over the "dangerous president" which is constantly repeating "America first" and wants to barricade the nation. I mean are these people blind !? This sentiment didn't come out of nowhere and calling it racist is missing the point. Plus to make it more absurd good chunk of those foreign students don't work in USA in the end, but instead they go home or wherever and then they compete with USA. Which is now full of people that lack proper education, since foreigners took their place because they have more money.




In other words the root of the problem is too high emotional price of the money, something about what Americans often don't like to think about. If something is profitable or more profitable America will find the way to rationalize such practices, even if in practice things will be clearly down the hill. This is exactly how you created modern China: it was very profitable ... so we did it. In America everything is fairy expensive but that is by large margin because everyone needs healthcare and education, which are constantly ballooned through various market mechanisms due to demand. Therefore everyone needs to request large amount of money for their work in order to cover those two (what is un-competitive btw.). For decades you are electing people who don't really believe in government solutions or people who are funded by those who don't believe in government. Therefore it is no wonder that your government isn't working, it would shocking that things are going any other way from where they are going.



Plus from what I have seen your private space industry is getting subsidies. This is exactly why your public space industry is on halt. (this is what I have heard, I am not 100% sure this is correct)



My 2 cents

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Yes, really. GHWB admitted it and regretted it. I wasn't talking about any election. You are.

In 92, I was canvassing for a Republican Senate candidate at Republican households in a very conservative area and got repeatedly screamed at by Republicans about GHWB raising taxes and breaking the pledge. It was a huge betrayal and largely broke the allegiance of upper middle class folks from the Republican party. A lot of those voters voted Perot and Clinton in the fall.

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.

 

[Nicodemus]

I can see why Nico likes him, all I am saying. He conducts himself well. I don't think he is entirely money driven now, but he is also probably lying. He is also totally a Republican.

I don't like Bloomberg. But I much prefer him to Trump, as I would prefer Mike Pence or Ann Coulter to Trump (both of whom I detest), not because they would make good presidents, but because, while evil, they are not insane autocrats.