Election 2020

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Post Reply
User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Election 2020

Post by Econoline »

Jim Wright's take (on his blog, Stonekettle Station):
  • He’s in.

    It’s not exactly a surprise.

    He’s been hinting at it for a while.

    So, earlier this week when Bernie Sanders announced that he’s running for president in 2020, well, I wasn’t exactly caught unawares.

    Huzzah! shouted Sander’s supporters! Bernie or bust!

    Motherfucker! swore everybody else. Not this asshole again!

    And the fight was joined.

    I was lucky. Sort of. I take Tuesdays off to spend with my wife and so I was mostly away from social media for Announcement Day and thus didn’t have to watch the inevitable screaming shitfest that began the moment Sanders declared his intention.

    I came home to find my inbox overflowing like a ripe Port-O-Pottie.

    That trend has continued. This morning I quit reading at a hundred emails asking what I thought.

    What are you gonna to do, Jim? What are you going to do?

    Will you vote for Bernie? Will you vote against him? What are you going to do?

    What am I going to do?

    Same as I always do. Watch. Listen. Question. Acquire information. Analyze.

    And then act when the times comes.



    But this isn’t the time, not yet.



    Will I vote for Bernie?

    Will I vote against Bernie?

    We’re getting far, far ahead of ourselves here.


Blog post continues here.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Election 2020

Post by Burning Petard »

In general I like Jim W. stuff, even if I agree with another poster here who likes to call him Jim Wrong.

My major objection to Bernie is that he has run for election many times and won many times, but NEVER as a part of the Democratic party.

I want to support a person who has been a part of the Democratic party for at least a couple election cycles. But to quote CWO Wright again:

"I for goddamned sure know who Donald Trump is, Would I vote for Bernie Sanders? If he’s the only viable alternative to Trump? You bet I would."

Me too.

snailgate

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Election 2020

Post by Econoline »

To steal a line from Charlie Pierce: “Bernie Sanders is the architect of 2020's Democratic playing field.
But he doesn't own the real estate.”
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Election 2020

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Burning Petard wrote:In general I like Jim W. stuff, even if I agree with another poster here who likes to call him Jim Wrong.

My major objection to Bernie is that he has run for election many times and won many times, but NEVER as a part of the Democratic party.

I want to support a person who has been a part of the Democratic party for at least a couple election cycles. But to quote CWO Wright again:

"I for goddamned sure know who Donald Trump is, Would I vote for Bernie Sanders? If he’s the only viable alternative to Trump? You bet I would."

Me too.

snailgate
Before I'd vote for Trump I'd vote for almost anybody else so long as they had a (D) after their name.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Election 2020

Post by Lord Jim »

I will never, ever, ever vote for Donald Trump, period, full stop...

The Democrats could nominate Richard Ramirez or Tom Brady and I still wouldn't vote for Donald Trump...

That having been said, that doesn't mean I will vote for just any Democrat who's put up against him, no matter how far out in left field fantasyland they are...

If the Democrats nominate someone that I consider to be so reckless and irresponsible that I can't find a clothespin big enough to hold my nose with and still vote for them, (and it took an industrial strength clothespin for me to vote for Hillary, but at least she was reasonably sound on defense and national security) then I will either vote 3rd party or not vote...

I said in this thread back in January that I was finding the roll-out of Democratic Presidential hopefuls pretty depressing, and since then I have seen little to change that view...

The only announced candidate so far who seems to be injecting any level of realism into the debate at all is Amy Klobuchar. The rest of them all seem to be riding around on rainbow colored unicorns competing to see who can come up with the biggest no-realistic-way-to-pay-for-it goodie basket, while declaring unrestricted class warfare...

I see some of them are even saying they oppose giving the Department of Homeland Security one more penny for anything...

I guess in addition to giving the healthcare issue back to Trump and the GOP by embracing a position supported by 13% of the American people, they'd also like to give them the immigration/border security issue, despite all of Trump's grotesque excesses... :roll:

I agree with what Steve Schmidt said a little while back; the American people really deserve better then having to choose between a candidate who wants to create kiddie concentration camps and one who wants to eliminate border enforcement...

The good news is that there are still a bunch of potential candidates who have yet to announce so there's still time for the field to improve...

The even better news is that (unlike apparently most of the announced candidates) all the polling shows that rank-and-file Democrats are putting the ability to beat Trump ahead of ideological purity by a wide margin on their list of candidate considerations....(You would think a credible candidate who appealed to that would do well in a field where most of the contenders are seemingly involved in a self-indugent game of "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the leftiest of them all?")

And of course the best news of all is that there remains a decent chance that Donald Trump wont even be on the 2020 ballot... :ok
Last edited by Lord Jim on Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Election 2020

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Lord Jim wrote:And of course the best news of all is that there remains a decent chance that Donald Trump wont even be on the 2020 ballot... :ok
There is that ... but if Trump is removed or otherwise becomes so tainted that even the Republicans wouldn't tolerate him any further (and seriously, considering what they are already putting up with from him, that's a standard so low that I don't even want to theorize where it would be), they're not just gonna give up.  They'll nominate someone else who can tap into the "our white way of life is threatened, us versus them" mentality of the nitwits that make up the current Republican core, someone who won't come with all the baggage that Trump would take with him into the 2020 campaign ... someone like Pence, for example, the up-to-now Invisible Man in the Trump administration who seems to have been taking great pains to keep himself out of the public's eye and mind — maybe for just such a purpose?

There is the old saying about "better the devil you know than the ones you don't".  As Jim Wright said, we for goddam sure know what the current POTUS is about.  Trump is beatable, in my opinion, on his piss-poor performance to date alone, and the Democrats need to fire up the public on just that and keep stoking it until it reaches a white heat of fury against him just in time for Election Day.  But if the Republicans bring someone out of the wings, someone who is a relative unknown, someone who can plausibly say, "I didn't do that," then the Democrats' road to the White House just became a lot tougher.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20703
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Election 2020

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Econoline wrote:Well then, obviously when you make your own chart/table/spreadsheet/whatever (per David Gerrold's suggestion, above) one of the items on the vertical axis will be "Presidential-sounding name"...right?
Of course. Isn't that true for everyone? :shrug Aside from the Bush anomalies, of course. [I am uncertain about the Gore matter - it is the beginning of Gormless and Gordawful and conjures up images of Hemingway at his worst, what with all that corrida stuff. Also, Algore still sounds like a close ally of the Mekon and thus the enemy of Dan Dare and all right thinking persons].

It may be that I'm not taking too seriously (as yet) an election that will not happen until many tweets from now. And like LJ, I'd vote for ABT.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Election 2020

Post by Lord Jim »

I learned over the weekend that several of the Democratic candidates, apparently not satisfied with the tens of trillions of dollars in new spending already in their goodie baskets, (I really should stop calling them "goodie baskets"...with the way some of the candidates are ringing up the cash register, "goodie super tankers" would be more appropriate...poor Rudolph and his pals would never be able to get the sleigh off the ground loaded up with all of this swag...) have now gone into ultimate pander-mode by signing on to the "reparations" crapola...

I guess the race is on to see which Demo Presidential hopeful will be first to hit the 100 trillion mark in new spending commitments... :roll:

Maybe they can get Mexico to pay for it...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20703
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Election 2020

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

I am reminded of the brutal honesty of South African politics. Former Commander-in-Thief Zuma's corrupt buddies, including a church movement, formed a new party last year to contest the upcoming elections (May). One of the key supporters is Jimmy Manyi, tossed out of government, notably corrupt and awful. It is a congerie of those who benefit most from sucking money out of the Treasury.

The name? African Transformational Movement.

ATM.

So honest.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Election 2020

Post by Burning Petard »

LJ, just where are the GOP candidates any different from the Dems on this goody-bag issue? When was the last time a GOP senator declaimed about the horror of the national debt, or deficit spending. Certainly we heard nothing about it in the State of the Union message. The GOP goody bag is no smaller than the Dems, just filled with different items, starting with 'weapons platforms' the military does not want, but are carefully crafted to provide jobs in every GOP congressional district in the Union.The oh-so-honorable Newt Gingrich showed us all how to do this and the GOP has followed his lead magnificently.

snailgate

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Election 2020

Post by Sue U »

Lord Jim wrote:I learned over the weekend that several of the Democratic candidates, apparently not satisfied with the tens of trillions of dollars in new spending already in their goodie baskets, (I really should stop calling them "goodie baskets"...with the way some of the candidates are ringing up the cash register, "goodie super tankers" would be more appropriate...poor Rudolph and his pals would never be able to get the sleigh off the ground loaded up with all of this swag...)
This is, of course, total horseshit. As I have pointed out for years, Medicare for All -- whether iterated as a "public health option" or a full-on single-payer national health system -- would cost far less money than what is now being spent on healthcare coverage in the U.S., much of which goes into the obscene profits of the health insurance industry.

At present, a "Green New Deal" program is just a concept and is still too undefined to allow for any meaningful estimation of its costs and savings. But considering the actual existential threat posed by climate change, whatever the costs may be they are better spent there than on giving tax cuts to the rich and to large corporations.

More broadly, I am sick to death of hearing about how we Americans "can't afford" the basic social supports and infrastructure that every other industrialized democracy provides. It's simply not true. Or rather, it's only true if you're content to keep eating shit and unwilling to challenge the gross economic imbalances and disordered political priorities imposed by the current ruling class.
GAH!

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18298
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Election 2020

Post by BoSoxGal »

Brava, Sue! Thank you for that excellent post!
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Election 2020

Post by Lord Jim »

Well, let's see here...
This is, of course, total horseshit. As I have pointed out for years, Medicare for All -- whether iterated as a "public health option" or a full-on single-payer national health system -- would cost far less money than what is now being spent on healthcare coverage in the U.S., much of which goes into the obscene profits of the health insurance industry.
And of course you can't even theoretically get these off-setting savings without eliminating the private insurance system, which as I have pointed out is a course of action supported by a whopping 13% of the American people:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19000&p=266061&hili ... ce#p266061

I hope you're not suggesting that a policy proposal on an issue that is consistently at the top of voter concerns that has 13% support can possibly get passed into law...

Because that would be...

Oh, what's the phrase....

Oh yeah, total horseshit....

At present, a "Green New Deal" program is just a concept and is still too undefined to allow for any meaningful estimation of its costs and savings. But considering the actual existential threat posed by climate change, whatever the costs may be they are better spent there than on giving tax cuts to the rich and to large corporations.
For the past couple of weeks I have been meaning to start a thread about the so-called "Green New Deal"...I've tried to do some research on it, thinking that it might actually be a good idea to learn something about what it's supposed to mean before I talked about it...(I realize that might constitute a serious breach of the Terms Of Service for this board, but I thought I'd risk it... 8-) )

What I've learned is that there are a whole lot of proposals out there being touted by their authors as "The Green New Deal"...

The other thing that I have learned is that if you believe that "The Green New Deal" is just some sort of action plan directed at dealing with climate change, you believe something that could best be characterized as total horseshit...



For the purposes of this discussion, I will reference two of the many "Green New Deal" proposals out there...

What I take to be the original template for "The Green New Deal"; The Green Party's version:

https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal

And the version proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortz and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey (which I shall hereafter refer to as AOC-Markey):

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... n/109/text

The original Green Party "Green New Deal" can fairly be described as a very comprehensive Socialist/Pacifist Manifesto...

The AOC-Markey version, (I suppose recognizing that a comprehensive socialist/pacifist manifesto may not be a winning platform in the US) takes out a lot of the most over the top stuff, and replaces it with some hilariously vacuous verbiage...

Here are a couple of examples of the prose from AOC-Markey:
(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;
(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
Well that certainly makes everything perfectly clear...

And there's this:
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;

(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;

(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;

(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;....

O) providing all people of the United States with—

(i) high-quality health care;

(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;

(iii) economic security;
I'll stipulate that "family-sustaining wages" family leave, paid vacations, retirement security, affordable housing, higher education, etc, etc, etc, etc are all nice things, but I have to say that it's not immediately apparent to me what any of them have to do with fighting "climate change"...

What is immediately apparent to me is that they are all very expensive things, and noticeably lacking from AOC-Markey are any meaningful proposals for paying for them...

I have to say that the Green Party version actually does contain a proposal to raise a substantial chunk of money (though still not enough to pay for it's envisioned far-reaching government take over of the economy)

It's an horrendous proposal based on a complete fantasy, but at least it's a proposal:
The implementation of the Green New Deal will revive the economy, turn the tide on climate change and make wars for oil obsolete. This latter result, in turn, enables a 50% cut in the military budget, since maintaining bases all over the world to safeguard fossil fuel supplies and routes of transportation could no longer be justified. That military savings of several hundred billion dollars per year would go a very long way toward creating green jobs at home.
Gee whiz, somehow the 50% cut in defense spending didn't make it into AOC-Markey...

Hmm..I wonder why that is...
More broadly, I am sick to death of hearing about how we Americans "can't afford" the basic social supports and infrastructure that every other industrialized democracy provides. It's simply not true.
I'll tell you what's simply not true...

The idea that you can pay for European level social services by some formula of having "the rich" pay their "fair share"...

That's total pony poop...

And it's certainly not the way the Europeans do it...

They've done it by having massively higher taxes of all types imposed on all working people across the board...

Federal income tax rates are substantially higher for average wage earners than in the US:

https://digitalnomadeurope.com/income-t ... ean-union/

Let's look at a couple of examples from that link, Austria and Belgium:
Austria

You will not get taxed on income lower than €11.000. Income between €11.000 and €18.000 will be taxed at 25%. There is a grading scale for higher income, with a 50% tax rate for income over €90.000 and below €1 million.

Belgium

There is no tax-free personal allowance. Income up to €11.070 is taxed at 25%. Income between €11.070 and €38.830 is taxed at a rate between 30% and 45%, while all income over €38.830 is taxed at 50%.
By contrast, US tax payers earning the dollar equivalent of between 38,000 and 90,000 Euros annually pay a federal income tax rate of between 12 and 24 per cent:

https://smartasset.com/taxes/current-fe ... x-brackets

But of course it doesn't stop there...

Let's look at the sales tax rates:
The Sales Tax Rate in European Union stands at 21.50 percent.
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-u ... s-tax-rate

While in the US (no national sales tax):
Forty-five states and the District of Columbia collect statewide sales taxes.

Local sales taxes are collected in 38 states. In some cases, they can rival or even exceed state rates.

The five states with the highest average combined state and local sales tax rates are Louisiana (10.02 percent),

Tennessee (9.46 percent), Arkansas (9.41 percent), Washington (9.18 percent), and Alabama (9.10 percent).
https://taxfoundation.org/state-and-loc ... ates-2018/

So regarding sales taxes we're talking about anywhere between zero and 10%, versus 21.5%...

And don't even get me started on the gas taxes:
60% tax on petrol gives Britain, France and Germany some of the highest pump prices worldwide.
http://www.uhy.com/european-companies-s ... uel-costs/


So, if there's a Democratic candidate out there who wants to say "The way I'm going to pay for my goodie super tanker is by more than doubling the federal income tax rate on average working people, more than double the sales tax they pay for everything they buy, and slap a 60% tax on gas at the pump"...

I'll say "Well at least the there stands an honest guy/gal, but good luck with that"...

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath...

The last national Democratic political candidate who was honest about how they were going to pay for all their largess was Walter "I'm going to raise your taxes" Mondale...

Also known as Walter "Loser Of 49 States" Mondale...

Ever since then in election cycles for decades, Democrats have tried to sell the American people on the idea that they could pay for all their good deeds just by getting the "fair share" of taxes out of "the rich"...

But of course that math has never added up, and in this election cycle with the vastly expanded wish lists many candidates are touting, the numbers are even further apart...

It's total horseshit...


ETA:

Note to wes:

You see there wes...

I'm perfectly capable of being a relentless and uncompromising Never Trumper, and pouring scathing condemnation on the Republicans who have collaborated with him, while at the same time still having plenty of criticism left over for the Democrats...

So you can drop your ridiculous attempts to try to tie me to Maxine Waters, or the "antifa"...

When it comes to finding fault and handing out criticism, I'm an accomplished multi-tasker... :ok
ImageImageImage

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18298
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Election 2020

Post by BoSoxGal »

If the Democratic nomination were based solely on likability, on which candidate would bring optimism and positivity and civility back to the national conversation, I’d vote for Julian Castro. I’m going to have to learn more about his voting record and whether he is progressive enough for my taste but I’m intrigued. He exudes trustworthiness, IMHO.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

Election 2020

Post by RayThom »

IIRC -- Julian Castro was Hillary's first choice for a running mate but he turned her down. Maybe that's a good sign of his trustworthiness, and good judgement.

I'm waiting to hear from "my neighbor," Joe Biden, before I start looking at the current contenders viability. I'm sure a bunch will drop out as soon as he enters the race. Plus he's sure to pick a female running mate.

Image
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18298
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Election 2020

Post by BoSoxGal »

I'm adding another to the top of my favorites list: 'Mayor Pete' Buddha-judge - actually Buttigieg, but who the heck can pronounce THAT?!

I've seen him in interviews a half dozen times now and I'm very, very impressed. He's not just likeable, and charismatic in a boyish, trustworthy, neighbor kid kind of way - but he is hella smart on every issue I've seen him questioned on and he's able to articulate his positions in a way that is easy to understand yet also nuanced enough that it is clear he grasps the complexities.

Beto, who I liked in theory, turns out to be kinda vacuous on just about everything - I'm not sure why people are so nuts for him, except that his last opponent was such an eel.

Anyway, back to Mayor Pete - yeah, he's really young. Yeah, he's openly gay. (Which should NOT MATTER AT ALL!) Yeah, he's only been a mayor. But, he's a veteran of the longest war we've ever had and still can't seem to put behind us and the war on terror era that still defines so much about American life today; he's a member of the generation that's going to take the biggest impacts of the shit coming from climate change - not just the weather, but all the human devastation that will come with it. I personally think people in their mid-late 30s are very on top of things mentally and if open to consulting with others who benefit from the wisdom of greater experience, they can be excellent leaders. Buttigieg seems to have a personality that would build bridges and compromises and with a cabinet of strong advisors, he could do good things.

I think he could really appeal to the people who want to see a return to decency. I'm not sure how he fares against Donald Trump, but then I'm not sure how we measure that with any candidate. Is it whether they hold their noses and refuse to stoop to his level? Whether they fling as much poop as he flings? Surely every single candidate for the D nomination will have no problem throwing his abysmal record of presidential behavior in his face repeatedly throughout the general campaign.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a ... interview/
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18298
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Election 2020

Post by BoSoxGal »

To address the elephant in the room (of sorts): I'm still very bullish on Elizabeth Warren, despite a frustration over her whole 'identifying herself as native american' episode. Beyond that, she's my #1 perfect candidate in terms of policy, hands down. And I can get beyond that mistake because I don't see it as character damaging - I'm pretty sure I know where it came from and that it came from a place of goodness and not badness. But I do worry that because she is TOUGH AS NAILS and has that issue, it would be a distraction and might cost us the WH. I hate that SO MUCH, but it is a realistic worry now that I am ever more aware of the millions of ugly-hearted morons who dwell among us.

To be honest, I am not excited about any of the other women running. Harris doesn't excite me and I am former prosecutor averse in general. Klobuchar rubs me the wrong way - the stories of her staff management style, which ring true, are enough to ring alarm bells - I would say the same if she were a man. We just don't need another angry control freak with communication issues in the Oval, not with so many other quality people to choose from. Tulsi Gabbard seems a bit whack, Marianne Williamson doesn't belong in the race (sorry MW!), and I have never felt warmly toward Kirsten Gillibrand, but I am willing to look into her and consider her more seriously.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

Election 2020

Post by RayThom »

BSG, I agree. Mayor Pete appears to be the most intellectually savvy person in the race so far. He's quick, and always with great answers.

Unfortunately, I feel he will not generate much traction and, if Biden finally commits, everyone with their hat in the ring will eventually bow to him, and drop out. My hope is that Biden will get the nomination, take on Warren as his running mate -- and after they win -- he'll pass the gonfalon to Warren in 2024, leaving her with the chance to become the first woman president.

I want Mayor Pete to keep chipping away -- at all levels of government -- and maybe by 2028, have enough experience and name recognition to make a difference on the federal level.

But first, Lord Dampnut must be dethroned.
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18298
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Election 2020

Post by BoSoxGal »

On another note, I am planning to register Republican so I can vote for Bill Weld in the primary. Anyone else?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

rubato
Posts: 14213
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Election 2020

Post by rubato »

And of course you can't even theoretically get these off-setting savings without eliminating the private insurance system, which as I have pointed out is a course of action supported by a whopping 13% of the American people:
The UK,France, Australia, and many others have both a national health system and private insurance. National insurance does not require eliminating private insurance at all. Allowing the rich to continue with private coverage which they pay for actually saves money. I would think that was obvious.


yrs,
rubato

Post Reply