US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

[Guest]

6 hours ago, DMC said:

You sure do fight with everyone around here.

To be fair to @Simon Steele, and as someone who has also spent the past 12 years of their life digging out from the hole the recession put me in, I can sympathize being a little irked about being told how good the economy is.

Also, the rise in consumer spending has largely been fueled by debt among the lowest 60% of U.S. consumers as measured by income, which doesn't exactly herald a gangbusters economy.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I was looking at some head-to-head polls (yes, yes, caveat emptor); the CBS/YouGov is unusual in that it has 10000 RVs.. This time should be a little better than polls late last year, but not as good as July.

Bloomberg -3, Biden +2, Warren +1, Sanders +3. The fact that it isn't +5-10 for any of them is an (weak) indication to me this will be a tough election for the eventual candidate. I guess I am looking for evidence that a Sanders candidacy will be death for down ballot Democrats.  And lo and behold, Bloomberg has an internal poll that claims exactly that. Is it true? Who knows.

[Lollygag]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I like your analogy.
However my real issue here is not even how talk of Bundy might be perceived, it's more that it seems quite ok to talk of Manson.
Like the fact Obama refused to seriously consider the possibility of the US apologizing for its support of Pinochet's regime for instance...
Or the fact that Anderson Cooper basically planned to "trap" Bernie on Cuba from the start.

I think my point here is that Bernie's not going to lose because he's wrong.

I agree with pointing out any double standards and making a change to US foreign policy in general. I agree with pointing out any hypocrisies. But Bernie's the one running for election right now. Whataboutisms still don't make it ok and they're yet another thing that I see Bernie people do that makes them sound like Trump's supporters.

It's a valid question and a valid concern. That you seem to be suggesting suppression of factual information from the voter is disturbing.

You're missing the point if you think it's not important. It's all over the news right now. Trump will use it to muddy the water and that's all he needs to win. That was the point I made before that you didn't respond to and cut out of your reply.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Yeah, he'd been elected first.

That helps. But Obama was trying to get Cuba to change their government unlike Bernie. You cut this out of my previous post, too.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

The US is the biggest polluter on the planet. Your "way of life" is unsustainable and we must all pray that countries like India and China never really emulate it. A different way to put it is that everyone would be better of if the "American way of life" disappeared, like, yesterday. 

Just a friendly reminder that suggesting anti-capitalism won't help might be the extraordinary proposition here.

You want to look at the greater picture by reminding everyone that Bernie's not a good candidate? Sure, though I'm not sure why anyone here needs the reminder. But if we're talking greater picture, might as well remember that by some estimates the next few US elections might determine the future of our species... So speaking about spending tens of trillions of dollars to fight climate change might be the reasonable option here.

Way I see it, the problem here definitely isn't Bernie.

You're missing the whole range of middle-grounds here. Economies and forms of government have both positive and negative manifestations. I agree that our form of capitalism has crossed over into the bad form (unenforced trickle-down economics, too Wall Street and less Main street, more) and it needs a correction badly before it tips and it needs it now. Everything degrades by its nature and needs tweeked back into form. That's been long neglected. Enter Warren's corrections - not bloody destroying everything.

Here's the problem with anti-capitalism. What the hell is that where Bernie's concerned? I have no idea. I'm supposed to vote for him and be surprised later? It's too late to have this discussion now. Bomb it on the voter while dealing with Russia's and the Republicans' spin machine that turns emails into deal breakers? Add this to the list of things Bernie should have dealt with in the past 5 years.

People do need a reminder. Folks aren't doing the research into him but the Republicans assuredly have. How are we going to fight climate change if Bernie turns our entire economy upside down and spends us into oblivion based on made up numbers?

 

I won't read or respond to any more hacked up posts which are used to be disingenuous.

 

[Ormond]

10 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

That seems like such a load. The economy is good for the rich and no one else. Since most Americans (more than 70 percent) live paycheck to paycheck, I absolutely cannot believe that most Americans think things are great.

I am sorry for your personal economic struggles. Your own analysis of the economy may well be correct.

But you would seem to just be empirically wrong in refusing to believe that most Americans think the economy is good. Here is a link to the Gallup polls on the economy over the years:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1609/consumer-views-economy.aspx

As you will see if you look at the above, the latest figures from January 2020 show 62% think the economy is "good" or "excellent"; 59% think the economy is "getting better"; 68% think it's "a good time to find a quality job".

Maybe those aren't the best questions to ask on this issue. But unless I get shown data from scientific pollsters that support your contention, you aren't going to convince me that most Americans now think the economy is bad, no matter how many say they are "living paycheck to paycheck." It would seem you are assuming that most people have your beliefs about the economy without having the data to back that up.

Again, your beliefs may well be the correct ones. But unfortunately it's what people believe, not what's correct, that will influence their votes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I was thinking last night, knowing this will never happen, but would people support Rev. William Barber as a VP pick? There seems to be a massive amount of upside there, especially if the nominee is a non-practicing Jew.

[Lollygag]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

No one knows exactly how much m4a will cost.  Estimates range from 35 trillion to 60 trillion over 10 years - that's a pretty big span.  Because we don't know just how much the cost of healthcare will go down how quickly.  But it's still cheaper than the system we have now, and it will also give healthcare to the millions who right now are uninsured or underinsured.  

You don't have to buy it, you can disagree that his plans to pay for it will work.  But don't keep moving the goal posts from "they won't say how they can pay for it".  A bunch of studies have shown that m4a is cheaper than a public option and cheaper than our current system.  How do we pay for those?  How would Warren pay for single payer?  Does she have a plan?  Can it be done?  Has this idea worked anywhere else in the world?  

 

How am I moving the goal posts again? You said how it would be paid for was explained, then I showed where Bernie said it wasn't, then it was, then it changed...and now you say no one knows which is at odds with Bernie's current stance last I checked and your own previous post.

I agree with the problem. At least some of this might be right and my personal experience leads me to strongly suspect this. Employers are bending backwards trying to keep up with healthcare costs for their employees and it's now become a very painful experience. But that a solid plan can't be put out that the Democratic consensus agrees upon when it would be a knockout issue for them makes me deeply skeptical about these studies and plans. If it can't get through the government and no one can really pinpoint where the problem is, I don't have faith. I'm all in for trying for it, but not for shoving through whatever and let's see what happens type legislation where we have to hope our medical care doesn't get caught in any potential mess. Again, I'm no aspirational voter.

And I definitely don't have any faith in Bernie.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I was looking at some head-to-head polls (yes, yes, caveat emptor); the CBS/YouGov is unusual in that it has 10000 RVs.. This time should be a little better than polls late last year, but not as good as July.

Bloomberg -3, Biden +2, Warren +1, Sanders +3. The fact that it isn't +5-10 for any of them is an (weak) indication to me this will be a tough election for the eventual candidate. I guess I am looking for evidence that a Sanders candidacy will be death for down ballot Democrats.  And lo and behold, Bloomberg has an internal poll that claims exactly that. Is it true? Who knows.

Absent empirical evidence, one of the huge, obvious, problems is messaging. Republicans at every level will largely have the same message. Democrats are likely to have a really disjointed message with Sanders at the top of the ticket.

Just look at the stuff coming out about Cuba, the Sandinistas, etc. Who wants to defend that, let alone embrace it.

[Lollygag]

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/bloomberg-spox-rips-bernies-loopy-comments-said-toddlers-should-run-around-naked-and-touch-each-others-genitals/

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-freeman-sexual-freedom-fluoride/

Quote

“We have a candidate who has risen in the polls because of this track record,” O’Brien said. “Bernie has loopy stuff in his background, saying women get cancer from having too many orgasms or toddlers should run around naked and touch each other’s genitals to insulate themselves from porn?”

Speaking for a nation of New Day viewers, Camerota exclaimed “What?!”

O’Brien was undeterred, asking why this “loony side of Bernie” has not yet surfaced. Well, here it is, in all its super weird splendor.

To what is he referring? Sanders published an essay decades ago, recently dug up by Mother Jones, that reads:

Now, if children go around naked, they are liable to see each others sexual organs, and maybe even touch them. Terrible thing! If we [raise] children up like this it will probably ruin the whole pornography business, not to mention the large segment of the general economy which makes its money by playing on people’s sexual frustrations.

 

[Bael's Bastard]

If the economy is great, that only proves that a great economy is of no inherent benefit to most Americans. Low unemployment doesn't mean much if almost half of Americans can't afford basic necessities, and have to choose which necessities to forego. That's unacceptable with so much wealth in this country.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/minimum-wage-2019-almost-half-of-all-americans-work-in-low-wage-jobs/

[Rippounet]

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

You're missing the point if you think it's not important. It's all over the news right now. Trump will use it to muddy the water and that's all he needs to win. That was the point I made before that you didn't respond to and cut out of your reply

I cut it out because I agree.

Yes, Trump & the Republicans (terrible band name btw) will slam Bernie. They will use every vaguely "un-American" comment he made to both incense their base and discourage moderates from voting - by having them think Bernie is just as bad as Trump.

The thing is, he's not. This isn't "whataboutism": Bernie is -essentially at least- correct on Cuba while Obama was totally wrong on Chile for instance. I'm not just pointing out a double standard, I'm also pointing out that slamming Bernie on Cuba is a form of perverse misinformation.

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

It's a valid question and a valid concern.

Bullshit. It's just taking quotes out of context and/or interpreting them in the simplest way possible, all the while suggesting that Bernie is really tempted by authoritarianism.
It's the same kind of bullshit that I see in the right-wing media, and to be honest, not even the best right-wing media.
I've seen it used against socialists for decades now.

And I get it, I'm sure Bernie is scary for moderates. But that's no reason to stoop to using the right's playbook on the current Democratic frontrunner. Assuming you're acting in good faith (which I'm increasingly doubting tbh) you're only spreading the hysteria and the misinformation which you pretend to be afraid of. Don't you see the irony?

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I agree that our form of capitalism has crossed over into the bad form (unenforced trickle-down economics, too Wall Street and less Main street, more) and it needs a correction badly before it tips and it needs it now. Everything degrades by its nature and needs tweeked back into form. That's been long neglected. Enter Warren's corrections - not bloody destroying everything.

Wait, you are aware that Bernie's and Warren's programs are basically 90% the same, right? There's only a difference in messaging.

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Here's the problem with anti-capitalism. What the hell is that where Bernie's concerned? I have no idea.

Ideological posturing. Which is a weakness for a US election, as everyone here knows.

Or at least I'd have thought so.
*sigh*
If moderate liberals/Democrats start panicking about this kind of thing now, in fucking February, then you're all screwed people.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Just look at the stuff coming out about Cuba, the Sandinistas, etc. Who wants to defend that, let alone embrace it.

On Sandinistas? The US sought to overturn a democratic election (for the uptenth time in the Americas) and violated international law (being condemned too) under an administration that gave the finger to Congress, collaborating with Khomeini's Iran to finance a military band of thugs who basically terrorised Nicaraguan civilians, and almost 4 decades later no one wants to defend or embrace an actual leftist position on this?

For real?

Again, the problem isn't Bernie here.
And funnily enough this is why I was rooting for Warren. I've darkly suspected, for some time now, that most American "liberals" are scared of the left.
 

[IheartIheartTesla]

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Absent empirical evidence, one of the huge, obvious, problems is messaging. Republicans at every level will largely have the same message. Democrats are likely to have a really disjointed message with Sanders at the top of the ticket.

Just look at the stuff coming out about Cuba, the Sandinistas, etc. Who wants to defend that, let alone embrace it.

Democrats still have a +6 lead over the generic Republican and an incumbency advantage. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Larry of the Lawn]

51 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

How am I moving the goal posts again? You said how it would be paid for was explained, then I showed where Bernie said it wasn't, then it was, then it changed...and now you say no one knows which is at odds with Bernie's current stance last I checked and your own previous post.

I agree with the problem. At least some of this might be right and my personal experience leads me to strongly suspect this. Employers are bending backwards trying to keep up with healthcare costs for their employees and it's now become a very painful experience. But that a solid plan can't be put out that the Democratic consensus agrees upon when it would be a knockout issue for them makes me deeply skeptical about these studies and plans. If it can't get through the government and no one can really pinpoint where the problem is, I don't have faith. I'm all in for trying for it, but not for shoving through whatever and let's see what happens type legislation where we have to hope our medical care doesn't get caught in any potential mess. Again, I'm no aspirational voter.

And I definitely don't have any faith in Bernie.

You said he hasn't said how he'll pay for.  He has.  You said he doesn't have a number.  Well, when he said that he was pointing out that no one knows.   We have estimates.  

So they out out a number and how they'll pay for it.  That's not good enough for you.

This is all cherry picking comments out of context.  I gave you the link for how he says he'll pay for stuff - and no one does know exactly how much it will cost and estimates are all over the place, depending on who you ask.  What's certain is that it's cheaper than what we have now.  

It's cheaper than what we have now.

It's cheaper than m4a who want it.

It's cheaper than a public option. 

How would Warren or Pete pay for their plans?  I challenge you to answer that question.

Quote

Now, if children go around naked, they are liable to see each others sexual organs, and maybe even touch them. Terrible thing! If we [raise] children up like this it will probably ruin the whole pornography business, not to mention the large segment of the general economy which makes its money by playing on people’s sexual frustrations

This sounds like a pretty normal criticism of puritanical attitudes.  

 

 

And  FFS the Cuba shit is nothing.  Anytime Trump brings it up hammer him on Saudi Arabia and MBS, Kim Jong Un, and Putin.  It's easy.

[Fragile Bird]

19 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

If the economy is great, that only proves that a great economy is of no inherent benefit to most Americans. Low unemployment doesn't mean much if almost half of Americans can't afford basic necessities, and have to choose which necessities to forego. That's unacceptable with so much wealth in this country.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/minimum-wage-2019-almost-half-of-all-americans-work-in-low-wage-jobs/

Amazing. How does the US go from "it's the economy. stupid" to "a great economy is of no inherent benefit to most Americans".

[Conflicting Thought]

12 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I cut it out because I agree.

Yes, Trump & the Republicans (terrible band name btw) will slam Bernie. They will use every vaguely "un-American" comment he made to both incense their base and discourage moderates from voting - by having them think Bernie is just as bad as Trump.

The thing is, he's not. This isn't "whataboutism": Bernie is -essentially at least- correct on Cuba while Obama was totally wrong on Chile for instance. I'm not just pointing out a double standard, I'm also pointing out that slamming Bernie on Cuba is a form of perverse misinformation.

Bullshit. It's just taking quotes out of context and/or interpreting them in the simplest way possible, all the while suggesting that Bernie is really tempted by authoritarianism.
It's the same kind of bullshit that I see in the right-wing media, and to be honest, not even the best right-wing media.
I've seen it used against socialists for decades now.

And I get it, I'm sure Bernie is scary for moderates. But that's no reason to stoop to using the right's playbook on the current Democratic frontrunner. Assuming you're acting in good faith (which I'm increasingly doubting tbh) you're only spreading the hysteria and the misinformation which you pretend to be afraid of. Don't you see the irony?

Wait, you are aware that Bernie's and Warren's programs are basically 90% the same, right? There's only a difference in messaging.

Ideological posturing. Which is a weakness for a US election, as everyone here knows.

Or at least I'd have thought so.
*sigh*
If moderate liberals/Democrats start panicking about this kind of thing now, in fucking February, then you're all screwed people.

On Sandinistas? The US sought to overturn a democratic election (for the uptenth time in the Americas) and violated international law (being condemned too) under an administration that gave the finger to Congress, collaborating with Khomeini's Iran to finance a military band of thugs who basically terrorised Nicaraguan civilians, and almost 4 decades later no one wants to defend or embrace an actual leftist position on this?

For real?

Again, the problem isn't Bernie here.
And funnily enough this is why I was rooting for Warren. I've darkly suspected, for some time now, that most American "liberals" are scared of the left.
 

Dude, i wanted to thank you, for expressing the ideas of people on the left(not liberals) outside of the us, i've wanted to comment many times on this threads but i have troubles putting my thought in order to make a coherent point, and i really appreciate that you put this point of view here, cuz its wild to read some of the thing being said here, from the PoV of someone who lives in one of this countries that where affected by us policy 

[Jace, Extat]

9 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Yeah it sucks. I have options I suppose (which many Americans don't). I can stop halfway thru my PhD program and quit my job at the University which is a contract renewable position (thus the shitty pay), even tho my position is set to convert to a tenure track position the day I get my degree. But if I moved across the state and went back to public school teaching I'd make marginally more and have better cost if living. Of course, I can't really do that or I forfeit custody of my son to his mother. I mean he lives with me full time, but...fuck it. I'm tired of explaining the truly terrible conditions so many of us live in.

You're explaining the conditions you live in. Stop projecting your poor life planning onto every non-millionaire in the country.

9 hours ago, DMC said:

I suppose robots still do not have self awareness.  So should I speak in binary?

II00I 00III0 OIOOIIIOIO

Amiright?

23 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 

And  FFS the Cuba shit is nothing.  Anytime Trump brings it up hammer him on Saudi Arabia and MBS, Kim Jong Un, and Putin.  It's easy.

Butter Emails! SHE SOLD URANIUM TO THE RUSSIANS! SHE KILLED A STAFFER!

I'm sure reason and a sharp retort will work this time.

[Lollygag]

42 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

You said he hasn't said how he'll pay for.  He has.  You said he doesn't have a number.  Well, when he said that he was pointing out that no one knows.   We have estimates.  

So they out out a number and how they'll pay for it.  That's not good enough for you.

This is all cherry picking comments out of context.  I gave you the link for how he says he'll pay for stuff - and no one does know exactly how much it will cost and estimates are all over the place, depending on who you ask.  What's certain is that it's cheaper than what we have now.  

It's cheaper than what we have now.

It's cheaper than m4a who want it.

It's cheaper than a public option. 

How would Warren or Pete pay for their plans?  I challenge you to answer that question.

Um, making stuff up and changing all of the time doesn't count and you know that this is what I was talking about. Don't be absurd. It's also what Anderson Cooper was asking. No, any made up number is not good enough and several made up numbers is worse. It has to a quality number and a verifiable number. The same standard everyone else is held up to. Warren got crap for this but Bernie should be excused, right?

No, it's clearly not certain that it's cheaper. Why hasn't something already passed if that was established?

You can look up their websites for yourself. Warren has put out all of her plans to the public for government officials and scholars to verify her numbers. Only her M4A was brought down. Note that none of the other candidates are getting drilled about their numbers. I'm not fully confident in Warren's being able to pay for everything, but when it came to M4A, the numbers won, she acknowledged that and didn't start lying and making stuff up. I respect that.

42 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This sounds like a pretty normal criticism of puritanical attitudes.  

 

 

And  FFS the Cuba shit is nothing.  Anytime Trump brings it up hammer him on Saudi Arabia and MBS, Kim Jong Un, and Putin.  It's easy.

Ok. Go ahead and start preaching that at work and at your kids' schools and see how that works for ya.

Yeah, the Cuba thing certainly looks like nothing by all of the coverage. And the Republicans haven't even touched it yet.

[IheartIheartTesla]

29 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This sounds like a pretty normal criticism of puritanical attitudes.  

And  FFS the Cuba shit is nothing.  Anytime Trump brings it up hammer him on Saudi Arabia and MBS, Kim Jong Un, and Putin.  It's easy.

Yeah, even if he said some 'weird' stuff back in the 70s and 80s, we have to consider someone who won after the Access Hollywood tape came out. There are easy ways to counter much of this, but of course the Democrats like playing defense and respond rather than attack, attack, attack.

The 'Bernie Bros' do have what could be called a rapid response team or something similar, so I usually see a ready reply fairly soon for most of these kinds of nuggets.

[Liffguard]

5 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

No, it's clearly not certain that it's cheaper. Why hasn't something already passed if that was established?

Um, because a lot of extremely powerful people don't want the USA to have a cheaper, more efficient health system. Its current cruelty and inefficiency is by design, not an aberration that they'd love to fix if only they could think of a solution.

[Lollygag]

Just now, Liffguard said:

Um, because a lot of extremely powerful people don't want the USA to have a cheaper, more efficient health system.

Definitely. Why doesn't anyone, even Bernie, say that? Regardless, it shouldn't prevent putting out something with solid numbers. Yet it doesn't happen.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

41 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Again, the problem isn't Bernie here.
And funnily enough this is why I was rooting for Warren. I've darkly suspected, for some time now, that most American "liberals" are scared of the left.
 

Liberalism exists on a spectrum, and what a lot of us worry about is reaching for things that have no chance of passing. It only sets the movement back. Virtue signaling is all well and good, but it’s pointless if you can’t gain power.