The Democratic Candidates

mrussel1

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a few of them are on your side. AOC is. Elizabeth Warren is. I suspect even Bernie Sanders still is. A few others. Not many at all.

They are not on my side.  I think you might be picking what's important to you and would benefit you and applying it to others. If any of those people were elected president and went full on bat shit crazy like trump and just forced through their agenda without compromise, I'd most certainly be worse off in many respects.  I guess you could say that about just about any of the candidates in some ways.  But these people you mention are no different then others, they have picked their team and want to benefit them.  

Agreed. 

mcgruff10

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a few of them are on your side. AOC is. Elizabeth Warren is. I suspect even Bernie Sanders still is. A few others. Not many at all.

They are not on my side.  I think you might be picking what's important to you and would benefit you and applying it to others. If any of those people were elected president and went full on bat shit crazy like trump and just forced through their agenda without compromise, I'd most certainly be worse off in many respects.  I guess you could say that about just about any of the candidates in some ways.  But these people you mention are no different then others, they have picked their team and want to benefit them.  

Great points cincy. 

dignin

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a few of them are on your side. AOC is. Elizabeth Warren is. I suspect even Bernie Sanders still is. A few others. Not many at all.

I'd most certainly be worse off in many respects.   

Oh yeah? How so?

mrussel1

dignin said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a few of them are on your side. AOC is. Elizabeth Warren is. I suspect even Bernie Sanders still is. A few others. Not many at all.

I'd most certainly be worse off in many respects.   

Oh yeah? How so?

Waiving 1.6 trillion in student loans is a regressive tax that hurts everyone who doesn't have a loan. 

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a few of them are on your side. AOC is. Elizabeth Warren is. I suspect even Bernie Sanders still is. A few others. Not many at all.

They are not on my side.  I think you might be picking what's important to you and would benefit you and applying it to others. If any of those people were elected president and went full on bat shit crazy like trump and just forced through their agenda without compromise, I'd most certainly be worse off in many respects.  I guess you could say that about just about any of the candidates in some ways.  But these people you mention are no different then others, they have picked their team and want to benefit them.  

No, I didn't mean it like you took it. What their platforms may be isn't what I was talking about. What I meant is that their intentions and motivations are still righteous, i.e. what they do and want to do is, as far as they are concerned, meant to be in the best interests of the population - of the actual citizens. With the rest, that is not the case. With the rest, their interests lie with themselves, with their own power, and money money money. The rest are easily bribed, and easily corrupted. I am talking about where the hearts of the politicians are, not their policies. And yes, those people's hearts are on your side. You may think that their idea of what would be best for you isn't right, but that doesn't change the fact that they have the right intentions and are motivated by the things that politicians ought to be motivated by, in a perfect world.

dignin

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a few of them are on your side. AOC is. Elizabeth Warren is. I suspect even Bernie Sanders still is. A few others. Not many at all.

I'd most certainly be worse off in many respects.   

Oh yeah? How so?

Waiving 1.6 trillion in student loans is a regressive tax that hurts everyone who doesn't have a loan. 

Regressive? That's very debatable. Even if so how does that hurt you personally?

mrussel1

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a few of them are on your side. AOC is. Elizabeth Warren is. I suspect even Bernie Sanders still is. A few others. Not many at all.

I'd most certainly be worse off in many respects.   

Oh yeah? How so?

Waiving 1.6 trillion in student loans is a regressive tax that hurts everyone who doesn't have a loan. 

Regressive? That's very debatable. Even if so how does that hurt you personally?

It's absolutely regressive in nature.  It benefits those who are most likely to be high earners in the future.  And while the tax may only hit the higher incomes,  it will take away available resources for more needy. This could be SNAP, title III funding and plenty of others.  I don't consider college grads in an employment era of 97% to be needy. 

Second,  you don't know how much I make,  how much I will make or how deep into the tax brackets this would cut. So it could affect many of us. 

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a few of them are on your side. AOC is. Elizabeth Warren is. I suspect even Bernie Sanders still is. A few others. Not many at all.

They are not on my side.  I think you might be picking what's important to you and would benefit you and applying it to others. If any of those people were elected president and went full on bat shit crazy like trump and just forced through their agenda without compromise, I'd most certainly be worse off in many respects.  I guess you could say that about just about any of the candidates in some ways.  But these people you mention are no different then others, they have picked their team and want to benefit them.  

No, I didn't mean it like you took it. What their platforms may be isn't what I was talking about. What I meant is that their intentions and motivations are still righteous, i.e. what they do and want to do is, as far as they are concerned, meant to be in the best interests of the population - of the actual citizens. With the rest, that is not the case. With the rest, their interests lie with themselves, with their own power, and money money money. The rest are easily bribed, and easily corrupted. I am talking about where the hearts of the politicians are, not their policies. And yes, those people's hearts are on your side. You may think that their idea of what would be best for you isn't right, but that doesn't change the fact that they have the right intentions and are motivated by the things that politicians ought to be motivated by, in a perfect world.

Ah intentions.  I would agree that AOC and Warren seem to have the best intentions.  I'm uncertain about Bernie to be honest. I think he showed his true intentions when he allowed his populist movement followers to ditch voting for Hillary and help enable a trump presidency.  But then, that just my opinion.

njnancy

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a few of them are on your side. AOC is. Elizabeth Warren is. I suspect even Bernie Sanders still is. A few others. Not many at all.

They are not on my side.  I think you might be picking what's important to you and would benefit you and applying it to others. If any of those people were elected president and went full on bat shit crazy like trump and just forced through their agenda without compromise, I'd most certainly be worse off in many respects.  I guess you could say that about just about any of the candidates in some ways.  But these people you mention are no different then others, they have picked their team and want to benefit them.  

No, I didn't mean it like you took it. What their platforms may be isn't what I was talking about. What I meant is that their intentions and motivations are still righteous, i.e. what they do and want to do is, as far as they are concerned, meant to be in the best interests of the population - of the actual citizens. With the rest, that is not the case. With the rest, their interests lie with themselves, with their own power, and money money money. The rest are easily bribed, and easily corrupted. I am talking about where the hearts of the politicians are, not their policies. And yes, those people's hearts are on your side. You may think that their idea of what would be best for you isn't right, but that doesn't change the fact that they have the right intentions and are motivated by the things that politicians ought to be motivated by, in a perfect world.

Ah intentions.  I would agree that AOC and Warren seem to have the best intentions.  I'm uncertain about Bernie to be honest. I think he showed his true intentions when he allowed his populist movement followers to ditch voting for Hillary and help enable a trump presidency.  But then, that just my opinion.

Completely agree about Bernie. 

brianlux

The only ones on my side are on the far side.

what dreams

Hi! said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

But, like if you are like 0,5% Native American. Is your "race" Native American then as long as it is above 0%? Or is it that you yourself can consider yourself "Native American" then if you wish, as long as it is above 0%?

I have no idea, but .5%, yeah you’re white. Everyone probably has .5% Native American. I think I’m personally 50% Neanderthal, lol.

At one time in our history, there was such a thing as the "one drop rule," i.e. in slaveholding states, a person's legal status was determined by having just one drop of African blood. It was a way of codifying the multi-generations of descendents that resulted from slave masters raping their slaves. 

I think we see remnants of this one-drop rule in today's world. 

Hi!

what dreams said:

Hi! said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

But, like if you are like 0,5% Native American. Is your "race" Native American then as long as it is above 0%? Or is it that you yourself can consider yourself "Native American" then if you wish, as long as it is above 0%?

I have no idea, but .5%, yeah you’re white. Everyone probably has .5% Native American. I think I’m personally 50% Neanderthal, lol.

At one time in our history, there was such a thing as the "one drop rule," i.e. in slaveholding states, a person's legal status was determined by having just one drop of African blood. It was a way of codifying the multi-generations of descendents that resulted from slave masters raping their slaves. 

I think we see remnants of this one-drop rule in today's world. 

Interesting and thanks for sharing.
As far as who’s what, what percentage, color of skin, this, that, and the other, I don’t care. I don’t think my heart can take a whole campaign of hearing Trump yelling Pocahontas everyday. Out of all things Trump has said, the Pocahontas thing has always bothered me most. I wouldn’t say it bugs me as Trump uses it to slam Warren, but the disrespect it shows to Native Americans and the history of the actual Pocahontas.

brianlux

Hi! said:

what dreams said:

Hi! said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

But, like if you are like 0,5% Native American. Is your "race" Native American then as long as it is above 0%? Or is it that you yourself can consider yourself "Native American" then if you wish, as long as it is above 0%?

I have no idea, but .5%, yeah you’re white. Everyone probably has .5% Native American. I think I’m personally 50% Neanderthal, lol.

At one time in our history, there was such a thing as the "one drop rule," i.e. in slaveholding states, a person's legal status was determined by having just one drop of African blood. It was a way of codifying the multi-generations of descendents that resulted from slave masters raping their slaves. 

I think we see remnants of this one-drop rule in today's world. 

Interesting and thanks for sharing.
As far as who’s what, what percentage, color of skin, this, that, and the other, I don’t care. I don’t think my heart can take a whole campaign of hearing Trump yelling Pocahontas everyday. Out of all things Trump has said, the Pocahontas thing has always bothered me most. I wouldn’t say it bugs me as Trump uses it to slam Warren, but the disrespect it shows to Native Americans and the history of the actual Pocahontas.

Yeah, he's clueless.  He probably doesn't know the first thing about Pocahontas, the person or for that matter the song either.

Hi!

brianlux said:

Hi! said:

what dreams said:

Hi! said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

But, like if you are like 0,5% Native American. Is your "race" Native American then as long as it is above 0%? Or is it that you yourself can consider yourself "Native American" then if you wish, as long as it is above 0%?

I have no idea, but .5%, yeah you’re white. Everyone probably has .5% Native American. I think I’m personally 50% Neanderthal, lol.

At one time in our history, there was such a thing as the "one drop rule," i.e. in slaveholding states, a person's legal status was determined by having just one drop of African blood. It was a way of codifying the multi-generations of descendents that resulted from slave masters raping their slaves. 

I think we see remnants of this one-drop rule in today's world. 

Interesting and thanks for sharing.
As far as who’s what, what percentage, color of skin, this, that, and the other, I don’t care. I don’t think my heart can take a whole campaign of hearing Trump yelling Pocahontas everyday. Out of all things Trump has said, the Pocahontas thing has always bothered me most. I wouldn’t say it bugs me as Trump uses it to slam Warren, but the disrespect it shows to Native Americans and the history of the actual Pocahontas.

Yeah, he's clueless.  He probably doesn't know the first thing about Pocahontas, the person or for that matter the song either.

He’s a big Neil fan, so ya never know. We all remember the elevator ride.

Spiritual_Chaos

Hi! said:

brianlux said:

Hi! said:

what dreams said:

Hi! said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

But, like if you are like 0,5% Native American. Is your "race" Native American then as long as it is above 0%? Or is it that you yourself can consider yourself "Native American" then if you wish, as long as it is above 0%?

I have no idea, but .5%, yeah you’re white. Everyone probably has .5% Native American. I think I’m personally 50% Neanderthal, lol.

At one time in our history, there was such a thing as the "one drop rule," i.e. in slaveholding states, a person's legal status was determined by having just one drop of African blood. It was a way of codifying the multi-generations of descendents that resulted from slave masters raping their slaves. 

I think we see remnants of this one-drop rule in today's world. 

Interesting and thanks for sharing.
As far as who’s what, what percentage, color of skin, this, that, and the other, I don’t care. I don’t think my heart can take a whole campaign of hearing Trump yelling Pocahontas everyday. Out of all things Trump has said, the Pocahontas thing has always bothered me most. I wouldn’t say it bugs me as Trump uses it to slam Warren, but the disrespect it shows to Native Americans and the history of the actual Pocahontas.

Yeah, he's clueless.  He probably doesn't know the first thing about Pocahontas, the person or for that matter the song either.

He’s a big Neil fan, so ya never know. We all remember the elevator ride.

I WAS SO HYPE!

Jason P

^ they kinda look like brothers 

what dreams

I haven't heard any Pocahontas talk lately. I used to feel the same way, thinking it would be an awful campaign for that reason if Warren were the nominee. The more I listen, though, the more I like her. At one point, and I think I even commented here to this effect, I couldn't stand listening to her yelling. But now I appreciate her spunk. We need someone who can take Trump down in an argument, and so far, I feel she's the only one who could survive a wrestle in the mud with him. She's scrappy, and her scrappiness has grown on me. I haven't totally made up my mind yet on policy positions, because we still have time and I'm not in a rush to wholeheartedly back any of them. But I have no doubt Warren could win against Trump. She's up for the fight.

OnWis97

what dreams said:

I haven't heard any Pocahontas talk lately. I used to feel the same way, thinking it would be an awful campaign for that reason if Warren were the nominee. The more I listen, though, the more I like her. At one point, and I think I even commented here to this effect, I couldn't stand listening to her yelling. But now I appreciate her spunk. We need someone who can take Trump down in an argument, and so far, I feel she's the only one who could survive a wrestle in the mud with him. She's scrappy, and her scrappiness has grown on me. I haven't totally made up my mind yet on policy positions, because we still have time and I'm not in a rush to wholeheartedly back any of them. But I have no doubt Warren could win against Trump. She's up for the fight.

I think she's generally the most qualified candidate running.  However, I think the student loan thing alone would kill her in the general. As a card-carrying liberal, I think it's terrible.  I would like to see the cost of education reduced, but people went into their debt with eyes wide open and to me it's not that different than me getting my house paid for.  It's a terrible idea and most of the beneficiaries will be either upper-middle class or people who made the choice to not be career-oriented in their paths.  And politically it's a freaking disaster. It will be perceived as helping: "the elite," "dumb-asses who threw six figures at a philosophy degree," people of means, and maybe even racist (i.e., mostly white people have accumulated this debt).  This will make it really easy for Trump and the GOP to win simply by over-using the word "socialist."

It's a bad idea...and while I'd obviously vote for her (or just about anyone) over Trump, that word, to middle-of-the road people, "socialism," is probably more powerful than all the negatives about Trump combined.  And, for reasons that totally escape logic, America's working class hero is a born-billionaire NYC elitist with an Ivy League degree who's never done laundry or mowed a lawn. But it's working.  She's the anti-"every man" if she targets a huge bailout of people who went to college.

Spiritual_Chaos

That "lets just cancel student loans" thing... is just weird. 

Spiritual_Chaos

njnancy said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a few of them are on your side. AOC is. Elizabeth Warren is. I suspect even Bernie Sanders still is. A few others. Not many at all.

They are not on my side.  I think you might be picking what's important to you and would benefit you and applying it to others. If any of those people were elected president and went full on bat shit crazy like trump and just forced through their agenda without compromise, I'd most certainly be worse off in many respects.  I guess you could say that about just about any of the candidates in some ways.  But these people you mention are no different then others, they have picked their team and want to benefit them.  

No, I didn't mean it like you took it. What their platforms may be isn't what I was talking about. What I meant is that their intentions and motivations are still righteous, i.e. what they do and want to do is, as far as they are concerned, meant to be in the best interests of the population - of the actual citizens. With the rest, that is not the case. With the rest, their interests lie with themselves, with their own power, and money money money. The rest are easily bribed, and easily corrupted. I am talking about where the hearts of the politicians are, not their policies. And yes, those people's hearts are on your side. You may think that their idea of what would be best for you isn't right, but that doesn't change the fact that they have the right intentions and are motivated by the things that politicians ought to be motivated by, in a perfect world.

Ah intentions.  I would agree that AOC and Warren seem to have the best intentions.  I'm uncertain about Bernie to be honest. I think he showed his true intentions when he allowed his populist movement followers to ditch voting for Hillary and help enable a trump presidency.  But then, that just my opinion.

Completely agree about Bernie. 

In what way did he allow it. And in what way could he do anything about it? He campaigned for Hillary did he not?