The Democratic Candidates

Jearlpam0925

cincybearcat said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Let's be clear about something here on student loan debt. It is on a path that goes beyond this dumb label of just stamping people with a label of "oh, you knew what you were getting into." Stop with that shit right now. I paid my loans. Do I want future generations to continue on the trajectory it's currently on? Absolutely not. "Because I did it means everyone else should do it" is terrible logic. There is a problem. It needs to be fixed as it's not sustainable. But like everything in our world - people like to pretend something isn't their problem when they're not individually attached to the issue (usually a beautifully dystopic Libertarian viewpoint).

First, they need to get rid of subsidized loans - that's #1: subsidies only drive up costs. #2 - the cost of college and higher education is no where even fucking close to what it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Hell, it's not even close to what it was 10 years ago. College is not supposed to be only an accessible benefit to the wealthy. #3 the benefit to the economy as a whole by putting more money in the wallets of the largest generation since the fucking garbage Boomers would outweigh any costs to taxpayers. 

#4 - while we're on the topic of what comes out of my wallet for taxes that I don't want to pay for - I could name an endless list of shit that I'd want my money back from right now instead of helping out higher education. Namely, we all bitch about this college plan shit (even though Warren's plan taxes the ultra wealthy of the wealthies to fund this) when it's a fucking drop in the ocean to how much of our actual dollars are taken out of our actual wallets for some garbage war going on somewhere that in no way benefits us whatsoever.

Do I think higher education should be free? Not at all, but the access and opportunity should be fair and equal. And it is not right now.

Warren is by far the most qualified candidate both in experience and, more importantly, detail of policy. She should have been given the keys to the CFPB, as she was the one who started it. Where Obama completely dropped the ball was by not dropping the hammer on large bank and investment firm execs ten years ago, and if Warren was actually heading the CFPB this would have happened. 

Student loans and subsidies are not not the problem.  It's the cost curve of education outpacing inflation is the problem.  I also don't understand how one argues that subsidies drive up cost,  unless you're arguing that it allows too many people to go to college,  thereby driving up the cost.  

Last,  no one has articulated how this loan forgiveness isn't a regressive tax.  In fact the Post had a long editorial today calling it a rich kid bailout.  I'll post it later,  but it is. 

To keep it simple here, subsidies in general are a bad idea. They inflate the cost of things by offsetting the burden someone else should be bearing and allowing the loan to cover the entire cost - in this case the cost of attendance. As this happens people just keep borrowing more and more money for the cost of the same education as 30 years ago and the schools drive up tuition - this being one reason, among others.

These are scripture of this research for me:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w21967.pdf
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf

The Post had an editorial today? No offense, but great - give me actual analysis and facts. You mean this opinion piece? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-is-running-on-a-plan-to-bail-out-rich-kids/2019/06/25/0fd67d72-96bc-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html?utm_term=.7dfef6568959 - even the title is terrible and a dead giveaway. I stress opinion piece, by the way.

And moreso I guess further to my point I'm not specifying Sanders' plan on this, but specifically Warren. And I'm struggling with pushing the narrative of regressive when i don't see that at all. Older generations were able to go to college, at a much more affordable cost, and build wealth while growing. Future middle-to-low income students in the same situation do not face the same opportunity as they'll be saddled with debt into their 40's. Considering people's career incomes peak in their 50s that isn't a great horizon. Regressive taxes are sin taxes. Not taxing the wealthiest of the wealthy so to 1) open up the wallets of the middle-class 2) hopefully build the structure for a real, affordable public higher ed system.

EDIT: If your narrative of a regressive tax is based around Sanders, then fine. But to the broader discussion/topic I'm specifically talking about Warren's plan.

I was going to read this but then I realized it was an opinion piece. 

Hey oh! That's the whole thing here right? Let's just shout in the echo chamber instead and see what bangs back.

Related to the regressive tax conversation - subsidies. A subsidy is a regressive tax benefit.

cincybearcat

Jearlpam0925 said:

cincybearcat said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Let's be clear about something here on student loan debt. It is on a path that goes beyond this dumb label of just stamping people with a label of "oh, you knew what you were getting into." Stop with that shit right now. I paid my loans. Do I want future generations to continue on the trajectory it's currently on? Absolutely not. "Because I did it means everyone else should do it" is terrible logic. There is a problem. It needs to be fixed as it's not sustainable. But like everything in our world - people like to pretend something isn't their problem when they're not individually attached to the issue (usually a beautifully dystopic Libertarian viewpoint).

First, they need to get rid of subsidized loans - that's #1: subsidies only drive up costs. #2 - the cost of college and higher education is no where even fucking close to what it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Hell, it's not even close to what it was 10 years ago. College is not supposed to be only an accessible benefit to the wealthy. #3 the benefit to the economy as a whole by putting more money in the wallets of the largest generation since the fucking garbage Boomers would outweigh any costs to taxpayers. 

#4 - while we're on the topic of what comes out of my wallet for taxes that I don't want to pay for - I could name an endless list of shit that I'd want my money back from right now instead of helping out higher education. Namely, we all bitch about this college plan shit (even though Warren's plan taxes the ultra wealthy of the wealthies to fund this) when it's a fucking drop in the ocean to how much of our actual dollars are taken out of our actual wallets for some garbage war going on somewhere that in no way benefits us whatsoever.

Do I think higher education should be free? Not at all, but the access and opportunity should be fair and equal. And it is not right now.

Warren is by far the most qualified candidate both in experience and, more importantly, detail of policy. She should have been given the keys to the CFPB, as she was the one who started it. Where Obama completely dropped the ball was by not dropping the hammer on large bank and investment firm execs ten years ago, and if Warren was actually heading the CFPB this would have happened. 

Student loans and subsidies are not not the problem.  It's the cost curve of education outpacing inflation is the problem.  I also don't understand how one argues that subsidies drive up cost,  unless you're arguing that it allows too many people to go to college,  thereby driving up the cost.  

Last,  no one has articulated how this loan forgiveness isn't a regressive tax.  In fact the Post had a long editorial today calling it a rich kid bailout.  I'll post it later,  but it is. 

To keep it simple here, subsidies in general are a bad idea. They inflate the cost of things by offsetting the burden someone else should be bearing and allowing the loan to cover the entire cost - in this case the cost of attendance. As this happens people just keep borrowing more and more money for the cost of the same education as 30 years ago and the schools drive up tuition - this being one reason, among others.

These are scripture of this research for me:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w21967.pdf
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf

The Post had an editorial today? No offense, but great - give me actual analysis and facts. You mean this opinion piece? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-is-running-on-a-plan-to-bail-out-rich-kids/2019/06/25/0fd67d72-96bc-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html?utm_term=.7dfef6568959 - even the title is terrible and a dead giveaway. I stress opinion piece, by the way.

And moreso I guess further to my point I'm not specifying Sanders' plan on this, but specifically Warren. And I'm struggling with pushing the narrative of regressive when i don't see that at all. Older generations were able to go to college, at a much more affordable cost, and build wealth while growing. Future middle-to-low income students in the same situation do not face the same opportunity as they'll be saddled with debt into their 40's. Considering people's career incomes peak in their 50s that isn't a great horizon. Regressive taxes are sin taxes. Not taxing the wealthiest of the wealthy so to 1) open up the wallets of the middle-class 2) hopefully build the structure for a real, affordable public higher ed system.

EDIT: If your narrative of a regressive tax is based around Sanders, then fine. But to the broader discussion/topic I'm specifically talking about Warren's plan.

I was going to read this but then I realized it was an opinion piece. 

Hey oh! That's the whole thing here right? Let's just shout in the echo chamber instead and see what bangs back.

Related to the regressive tax conversation - subsidies. A subsidy is a regressive tax benefit.

I was joking about your opinion that we shouldn’t read an opinion piece

Spiritual_Chaos

So what snacks and drinks have you bought for the debate?

Jearlpam0925

cincybearcat said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

cincybearcat said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Let's be clear about something here on student loan debt. It is on a path that goes beyond this dumb label of just stamping people with a label of "oh, you knew what you were getting into." Stop with that shit right now. I paid my loans. Do I want future generations to continue on the trajectory it's currently on? Absolutely not. "Because I did it means everyone else should do it" is terrible logic. There is a problem. It needs to be fixed as it's not sustainable. But like everything in our world - people like to pretend something isn't their problem when they're not individually attached to the issue (usually a beautifully dystopic Libertarian viewpoint).

First, they need to get rid of subsidized loans - that's #1: subsidies only drive up costs. #2 - the cost of college and higher education is no where even fucking close to what it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Hell, it's not even close to what it was 10 years ago. College is not supposed to be only an accessible benefit to the wealthy. #3 the benefit to the economy as a whole by putting more money in the wallets of the largest generation since the fucking garbage Boomers would outweigh any costs to taxpayers. 

#4 - while we're on the topic of what comes out of my wallet for taxes that I don't want to pay for - I could name an endless list of shit that I'd want my money back from right now instead of helping out higher education. Namely, we all bitch about this college plan shit (even though Warren's plan taxes the ultra wealthy of the wealthies to fund this) when it's a fucking drop in the ocean to how much of our actual dollars are taken out of our actual wallets for some garbage war going on somewhere that in no way benefits us whatsoever.

Do I think higher education should be free? Not at all, but the access and opportunity should be fair and equal. And it is not right now.

Warren is by far the most qualified candidate both in experience and, more importantly, detail of policy. She should have been given the keys to the CFPB, as she was the one who started it. Where Obama completely dropped the ball was by not dropping the hammer on large bank and investment firm execs ten years ago, and if Warren was actually heading the CFPB this would have happened. 

Student loans and subsidies are not not the problem.  It's the cost curve of education outpacing inflation is the problem.  I also don't understand how one argues that subsidies drive up cost,  unless you're arguing that it allows too many people to go to college,  thereby driving up the cost.  

Last,  no one has articulated how this loan forgiveness isn't a regressive tax.  In fact the Post had a long editorial today calling it a rich kid bailout.  I'll post it later,  but it is. 

To keep it simple here, subsidies in general are a bad idea. They inflate the cost of things by offsetting the burden someone else should be bearing and allowing the loan to cover the entire cost - in this case the cost of attendance. As this happens people just keep borrowing more and more money for the cost of the same education as 30 years ago and the schools drive up tuition - this being one reason, among others.

These are scripture of this research for me:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w21967.pdf
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf

The Post had an editorial today? No offense, but great - give me actual analysis and facts. You mean this opinion piece? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-is-running-on-a-plan-to-bail-out-rich-kids/2019/06/25/0fd67d72-96bc-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html?utm_term=.7dfef6568959 - even the title is terrible and a dead giveaway. I stress opinion piece, by the way.

And moreso I guess further to my point I'm not specifying Sanders' plan on this, but specifically Warren. And I'm struggling with pushing the narrative of regressive when i don't see that at all. Older generations were able to go to college, at a much more affordable cost, and build wealth while growing. Future middle-to-low income students in the same situation do not face the same opportunity as they'll be saddled with debt into their 40's. Considering people's career incomes peak in their 50s that isn't a great horizon. Regressive taxes are sin taxes. Not taxing the wealthiest of the wealthy so to 1) open up the wallets of the middle-class 2) hopefully build the structure for a real, affordable public higher ed system.

EDIT: If your narrative of a regressive tax is based around Sanders, then fine. But to the broader discussion/topic I'm specifically talking about Warren's plan.

I was going to read this but then I realized it was an opinion piece. 

Hey oh! That's the whole thing here right? Let's just shout in the echo chamber instead and see what bangs back.

Related to the regressive tax conversation - subsidies. A subsidy is a regressive tax benefit.

I was joking about your opinion that we shouldn’t read an opinion piece

No, I got it.

OnWis97

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

dignin said:

OnWis97 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

Given how important I view this election: I'm pulling for the person that is going to make the non-voters feel like getting off the couch and voting FOR them (as opposed to against Trump).  

Surely Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden will get all the non voters and young people off their couch and out to vote.

No change you can believe in.

This is the big danger of selecting Biden as the nominee. 

Biden would probably win fewer than 10 states.

"Trump sucks" is not enough for a democrat to win. If America were a better place, it would be.

California,  new York,  new Jersey,  Virginia,  Delaware,  DC, Oregon,  Washington,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Colorado,  Vermont,  New Mexico are all locks.  
Which of these states does Biden not win that a more liberal candidate does win?

First, it's not about a "more liberal" candidate.  If anything, "more liberal" is a bad idea and plays into the "SOCIALIST!" theme.  

But my point was that I doubt Biden's going to increase the number of Dem voters; he's going to be more "Kerry" than "Obama."  Ten states?  OK you got me...He should roughly win the states that Hillary won, minus Minnesota.  If they dems have a chance, it's not going to be someone older than Trump.  He also might be the best candidate to hasten the Blexit movement.

So you're arguing for a centrist candidate that isn't Biden? Sure im fine with that.  I like Harris for example.  But she needs to break out. I disagree with your premise.  I think Biden draws in some center right people.  I guess the only question is whether he loses much on his left.  But I think he is the best shot at winning PA, MI and Wisconsin.  I don't see him losing MN.

To be frank, I'm not even sure who I'm arguing for...

I just think it's primarily about personality...and to me that's not really Biden.

But to whatever degree right/left/issues can cost someone votes, I think Biden would push some liberals to a third party...but perhaps gathering moderates would offset that?  I think he might struggle with the black vote more than most dems.  Blexit is picking up steam and Biden is probably the only candidate for whom racism could be a label levied by the left (see his work with segregationists and his role in mass incarceration).

Jearlpam0925

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

dignin said:

OnWis97 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

Given how important I view this election: I'm pulling for the person that is going to make the non-voters feel like getting off the couch and voting FOR them (as opposed to against Trump).  

Surely Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden will get all the non voters and young people off their couch and out to vote.

No change you can believe in.

This is the big danger of selecting Biden as the nominee. 

Biden would probably win fewer than 10 states.

"Trump sucks" is not enough for a democrat to win. If America were a better place, it would be.

California,  new York,  new Jersey,  Virginia,  Delaware,  DC, Oregon,  Washington,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Colorado,  Vermont,  New Mexico are all locks.  
Which of these states does Biden not win that a more liberal candidate does win?

First, it's not about a "more liberal" candidate.  If anything, "more liberal" is a bad idea and plays into the "SOCIALIST!" theme.  

But my point was that I doubt Biden's going to increase the number of Dem voters; he's going to be more "Kerry" than "Obama."  Ten states?  OK you got me...He should roughly win the states that Hillary won, minus Minnesota.  If they dems have a chance, it's not going to be someone older than Trump.  He also might be the best candidate to hasten the Blexit movement.

So you're arguing for a centrist candidate that isn't Biden? Sure im fine with that.  I like Harris for example.  But she needs to break out. I disagree with your premise.  I think Biden draws in some center right people.  I guess the only question is whether he loses much on his left.  But I think he is the best shot at winning PA, MI and Wisconsin.  I don't see him losing MN.

To be frank, I'm not even sure who I'm arguing for...

I just think it's primarily about personality...and to me that's not really Biden.

But to whatever degree right/left/issues can cost someone votes, I think Biden would push some liberals to a third party...but perhaps gathering moderates would offset that?  I think he might struggle with the black vote more than most dems.  Blexit is picking up steam and Biden is probably the only candidate for whom racism could be a label levied by the left (see his work with segregationists and his role in mass incarceration).

Biden is actually holding the largest African American vote....and it's not even close. I saw in a poll he's polling at 62% with African Americans. I think his problem is losing this base the more he talks. Well, not the more he talks, but the more the other candidates get exposure.

OnWis97

Jearlpam0925 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

dignin said:

OnWis97 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

Given how important I view this election: I'm pulling for the person that is going to make the non-voters feel like getting off the couch and voting FOR them (as opposed to against Trump).  

Surely Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden will get all the non voters and young people off their couch and out to vote.

No change you can believe in.

This is the big danger of selecting Biden as the nominee. 

Biden would probably win fewer than 10 states.

"Trump sucks" is not enough for a democrat to win. If America were a better place, it would be.

California,  new York,  new Jersey,  Virginia,  Delaware,  DC, Oregon,  Washington,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Colorado,  Vermont,  New Mexico are all locks.  
Which of these states does Biden not win that a more liberal candidate does win?

First, it's not about a "more liberal" candidate.  If anything, "more liberal" is a bad idea and plays into the "SOCIALIST!" theme.  

But my point was that I doubt Biden's going to increase the number of Dem voters; he's going to be more "Kerry" than "Obama."  Ten states?  OK you got me...He should roughly win the states that Hillary won, minus Minnesota.  If they dems have a chance, it's not going to be someone older than Trump.  He also might be the best candidate to hasten the Blexit movement.

So you're arguing for a centrist candidate that isn't Biden? Sure im fine with that.  I like Harris for example.  But she needs to break out. I disagree with your premise.  I think Biden draws in some center right people.  I guess the only question is whether he loses much on his left.  But I think he is the best shot at winning PA, MI and Wisconsin.  I don't see him losing MN.

To be frank, I'm not even sure who I'm arguing for...

I just think it's primarily about personality...and to me that's not really Biden.

But to whatever degree right/left/issues can cost someone votes, I think Biden would push some liberals to a third party...but perhaps gathering moderates would offset that?  I think he might struggle with the black vote more than most dems.  Blexit is picking up steam and Biden is probably the only candidate for whom racism could be a label levied by the left (see his work with segregationists and his role in mass incarceration).

Biden is actually holding the largest African American vote....and it's not even close. I saw in a poll he's polling at 62% with African Americans. I think his problem is losing this base the more he talks. Well, not the more he talks, but the more the other candidates get exposure.

Interesting...I do think time could be the enemy for him in this regard.  

Hi!

Spiritual_Chaos said:

So what snacks and drinks have you bought for the debate?

I’ll be smoking some GG and drinking water. I’ll probably make some chips and cheese for a snack.

Jearlpam0925

This race comes down to six states in the General: Florida, PA, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. I think Ohio is a lost cause (sorry OH residents, not trying to shit on you), but Fuckface won by nearly 500k votes last time. I don't even think putting any resources into the state is worth it. Dems can get back PA, MI, and WI with even a modicum of effort better than last Clinton did - she didn't even wink at Wisconsin. 

And I think any candidate that comes out from the Dems can get those states.

And I'll go out on a limb and say Arizona and Georgia can be gotten.

mrussel1

OnWis97 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

dignin said:

OnWis97 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

Given how important I view this election: I'm pulling for the person that is going to make the non-voters feel like getting off the couch and voting FOR them (as opposed to against Trump).  

Surely Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden will get all the non voters and young people off their couch and out to vote.

No change you can believe in.

This is the big danger of selecting Biden as the nominee. 

Biden would probably win fewer than 10 states.

"Trump sucks" is not enough for a democrat to win. If America were a better place, it would be.

California,  new York,  new Jersey,  Virginia,  Delaware,  DC, Oregon,  Washington,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Colorado,  Vermont,  New Mexico are all locks.  
Which of these states does Biden not win that a more liberal candidate does win?

First, it's not about a "more liberal" candidate.  If anything, "more liberal" is a bad idea and plays into the "SOCIALIST!" theme.  

But my point was that I doubt Biden's going to increase the number of Dem voters; he's going to be more "Kerry" than "Obama."  Ten states?  OK you got me...He should roughly win the states that Hillary won, minus Minnesota.  If they dems have a chance, it's not going to be someone older than Trump.  He also might be the best candidate to hasten the Blexit movement.

So you're arguing for a centrist candidate that isn't Biden? Sure im fine with that.  I like Harris for example.  But she needs to break out. I disagree with your premise.  I think Biden draws in some center right people.  I guess the only question is whether he loses much on his left.  But I think he is the best shot at winning PA, MI and Wisconsin.  I don't see him losing MN.

To be frank, I'm not even sure who I'm arguing for...

I just think it's primarily about personality...and to me that's not really Biden.

But to whatever degree right/left/issues can cost someone votes, I think Biden would push some liberals to a third party...but perhaps gathering moderates would offset that?  I think he might struggle with the black vote more than most dems.  Blexit is picking up steam and Biden is probably the only candidate for whom racism could be a label levied by the left (see his work with segregationists and his role in mass incarceration).

Biden is actually holding the largest African American vote....and it's not even close. I saw in a poll he's polling at 62% with African Americans. I think his problem is losing this base the more he talks. Well, not the more he talks, but the more the other candidates get exposure.

Interesting...I do think time could be the enemy for him in this regard.  

Why do you think "blexit" is a real thing and not just propaganda? I have not seen any consistent numbers showing Trump has made any inroads with African Americans. 

oftenreading

All the Dem candidates, in haiku form. 

Here Is Every 2020 Democrat, Roasted by Haiku  
https://nyti.ms/2LiZY5H

cincybearcat

Spiritual_Chaos said:

So what snacks and drinks have you bought for the debate?

Craft beer and advil

mrussel1

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Let's be clear about something here on student loan debt. It is on a path that goes beyond this dumb label of just stamping people with a label of "oh, you knew what you were getting into." Stop with that shit right now. I paid my loans. Do I want future generations to continue on the trajectory it's currently on? Absolutely not. "Because I did it means everyone else should do it" is terrible logic. There is a problem. It needs to be fixed as it's not sustainable. But like everything in our world - people like to pretend something isn't their problem when they're not individually attached to the issue (usually a beautifully dystopic Libertarian viewpoint).

First, they need to get rid of subsidized loans - that's #1: subsidies only drive up costs. #2 - the cost of college and higher education is no where even fucking close to what it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. Hell, it's not even close to what it was 10 years ago. College is not supposed to be only an accessible benefit to the wealthy. #3 the benefit to the economy as a whole by putting more money in the wallets of the largest generation since the fucking garbage Boomers would outweigh any costs to taxpayers. 

#4 - while we're on the topic of what comes out of my wallet for taxes that I don't want to pay for - I could name an endless list of shit that I'd want my money back from right now instead of helping out higher education. Namely, we all bitch about this college plan shit (even though Warren's plan taxes the ultra wealthy of the wealthies to fund this) when it's a fucking drop in the ocean to how much of our actual dollars are taken out of our actual wallets for some garbage war going on somewhere that in no way benefits us whatsoever.

Do I think higher education should be free? Not at all, but the access and opportunity should be fair and equal. And it is not right now.

Warren is by far the most qualified candidate both in experience and, more importantly, detail of policy. She should have been given the keys to the CFPB, as she was the one who started it. Where Obama completely dropped the ball was by not dropping the hammer on large bank and investment firm execs ten years ago, and if Warren was actually heading the CFPB this would have happened. 

Student loans and subsidies are not not the problem.  It's the cost curve of education outpacing inflation is the problem.  I also don't understand how one argues that subsidies drive up cost,  unless you're arguing that it allows too many people to go to college,  thereby driving up the cost.  

Last,  no one has articulated how this loan forgiveness isn't a regressive tax.  In fact the Post had a long editorial today calling it a rich kid bailout.  I'll post it later,  but it is. 

To keep it simple here, subsidies in general are a bad idea. They inflate the cost of things by offsetting the burden someone else should be bearing and allowing the loan to cover the entire cost - in this case the cost of attendance. As this happens people just keep borrowing more and more money for the cost of the same education as 30 years ago and the schools drive up tuition - this being one reason, among others.

These are scripture of this research for me:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w21967.pdf
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf

The Post had an editorial today? No offense, but great - give me actual analysis and facts. You mean this opinion piece? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-is-running-on-a-plan-to-bail-out-rich-kids/2019/06/25/0fd67d72-96bc-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html?utm_term=.7dfef6568959 - even the title is terrible and a dead giveaway. I stress opinion piece, by the way.

And moreso I guess further to my point I'm not specifying Sanders' plan on this, but specifically Warren. And I'm struggling with pushing the narrative of regressive when i don't see that at all. Older generations were able to go to college, at a much more affordable cost, and build wealth while growing. Future middle-to-low income students in the same situation do not face the same opportunity as they'll be saddled with debt into their 40's. Considering people's career incomes peak in their 50s that isn't a great horizon. Regressive taxes are sin taxes. Not taxing the wealthiest of the wealthy so to 1) open up the wallets of the middle-class 2) hopefully build the structure for a real, affordable public higher ed system.

EDIT: If your narrative of a regressive tax is based around Sanders, then fine. But to the broader discussion/topic I'm specifically talking about Warren's plan.

We're actually closer to agreeing than you may think.  So let me address a few points as succinctly as possible.  
1. My "unless" statement said "unless you are arguing they allow too many kids to go to college, thereby raising prices".  It appears that's what you are arguing.  And while from an economic angle, you're correct and I agree, from a political angle, it's not palatable to argue that we should reduce the availability of tertiary education, or create a policy that would have that net effect.  And I wouldn't vote for any candidate who argued for that personally.  I think it makes America less competitive, let alone exasperating class issues.  

2. If you read the post board editorial, it does come with some compelling facts, although none that have not been made before even on these boards.  It simply synthesizes some key ones that are relevant to Sanders plan.  And post editorial is a pretty fair board.  The Post is saying, as I've said here multiple times, and you just wrote, that the high tuition saddles disadvantaged students.  I completely agree.  I'm very supportive of free tuition for lower income students.  I'm not in favor of Sanders plan to wipe everything out.  The Post makes the same statement.  

3. Now the problem I have with Warren's plan is is where she cuts the numbers.  If I recall correctly, a person making less than 100k could have up to 50k (or something to that effect) of debt wiped clean.  Well, how many people make a hundred k straight out of college?  Very few.  I didn't.  So from the way I interpret the plan, the vast majority of graduates today and tomorrow will have up to the 50k wiped clean.  

Throw Sanders spend plan in the garbage.  I'd be supportive of some increased taxation to support low income students receiving substantially reduced tuition.  There are a ton of programs already in place for that, but we could stand to move those levels higher, particularly if it is in a STEM or in demand field.  And if a person does receive substantial gov't assistance for their tuition, let's get some charitable work requirements in there, while we're at it. 

Here's another 'opinion' article written by a UVA professor of economics and a researcher from the Urban Institute.  Neither are exactly bastion of conservative thought.  But they make a compelling case as well.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/free-tuition-is-the-opposite-of-progressive-policymaking/2019/05/03/4767edc8-6c1b-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.95580f63e132

And yes, I'm much more critical of the Sanders plans.  It's far more regressive than Warren's, but I don't care for hers either.  I support plans that target truly disadvantaged.  

njnancy

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

dignin said:

OnWis97 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

Given how important I view this election: I'm pulling for the person that is going to make the non-voters feel like getting off the couch and voting FOR them (as opposed to against Trump).  

Surely Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden will get all the non voters and young people off their couch and out to vote.

No change you can believe in.

This is the big danger of selecting Biden as the nominee. 

Biden would probably win fewer than 10 states.

"Trump sucks" is not enough for a democrat to win. If America were a better place, it would be.

California,  new York,  new Jersey,  Virginia,  Delaware,  DC, Oregon,  Washington,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Colorado,  Vermont,  New Mexico are all locks.  
Which of these states does Biden not win that a more liberal candidate does win?

First, it's not about a "more liberal" candidate.  If anything, "more liberal" is a bad idea and plays into the "SOCIALIST!" theme.  

But my point was that I doubt Biden's going to increase the number of Dem voters; he's going to be more "Kerry" than "Obama."  Ten states?  OK you got me...He should roughly win the states that Hillary won, minus Minnesota.  If they dems have a chance, it's not going to be someone older than Trump.  He also might be the best candidate to hasten the Blexit movement.

So you're arguing for a centrist candidate that isn't Biden? Sure im fine with that.  I like Harris for example.  But she needs to break out. I disagree with your premise.  I think Biden draws in some center right people.  I guess the only question is whether he loses much on his left.  But I think he is the best shot at winning PA, MI and Wisconsin.  I don't see him losing MN.

To be frank, I'm not even sure who I'm arguing for...

I just think it's primarily about personality...and to me that's not really Biden.

But to whatever degree right/left/issues can cost someone votes, I think Biden would push some liberals to a third party...but perhaps gathering moderates would offset that?  I think he might struggle with the black vote more than most dems.  Blexit is picking up steam and Biden is probably the only candidate for whom racism could be a label levied by the left (see his work with segregationists and his role in mass incarceration).

Biden is actually holding the largest African American vote....and it's not even close. I saw in a poll he's polling at 62% with African Americans. I think his problem is losing this base the more he talks. Well, not the more he talks, but the more the other candidates get exposure.

Interesting...I do think time could be the enemy for him in this regard.  

Why do you think "blexit" is a real thing and not just propaganda? I have not seen any consistent numbers showing Trump has made any inroads with African Americans. 

There is a huge difference between liberal and progressive. Sure, liberals started calling themselves progressives back when Repubs made it a dirty word, but there is a huge difference and people are starting to go back to calling themselves what is true to their ideology.

Biden is a liberal who appeals to moderates.

Warren is a progressive who believes in Capitalism (and she was robbed of that position in the Obama administration, she would have been perfect).

Sanders is a socialist or democratic socialist who does not believe in Capitalism and does not appeal to the largest Democratic voting bloc - blacks, esp black women.

I think that Biden and Warren would be a great ticket. They both have enormous intellect in various subjects and they would compliment each other with their specialized areas. But I have yet to make up my mind. 

Julian Castro is exceptionally qualified for the job and has many policy plans but has been overlooked. 

Amy Klobuchar is a moderate who I like very much. She is pragmatic. 

Harris would make a kick ass AG.

Buttigieg will make an outstanding President one day.

And when it comes to socialism and Trump sticking that label on everyone, there is easy answer to that (as long as people don't campaign on really outrageous things that are not in the forefront of voters minds).  If you don't like socialism, then give up Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Disability and the VA. All socialist programs. Socialized programs can exist in a democratic republic which embraces capitalism.

Those who will continue to judge according to Trump's twitter feed are lost souls and not part of the voting base that Democrats are reaching out to.


I will absolutely be watching the debate tonight and tomorrow - I think it is extremely important and any other things I need to do can be taken care of before or after or at another time. I want us to win and I want to be informed. 

njnancy

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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?

And in answer to @Spiritual_Chaos -

Bernie had lost way before the convention. He refused to drop out and went all the way to the convention where there was division and fighting over platform issues, the head of the DNC was forced to resign and his 'followers' did not have the best intentions of the country in mind due to their leader.  They were loyal to Bernie, not to beating Trump. They were, and are, obnoxious - at least the loyalest portion of them. 

Sanders was a very appealing Senator to me and when he was getting large crowds with his  ideas I thought it was great, at first. As he developed a 'following', he began to think of himself more than the country. If he really cared about who would win the general election, he would have left the race much earlier, there was no reason to go through all 50 states - the numbers did not add up but he was fueled by his crowds and he began to tell his crowds that they would go all the way and fight to the end. He did not have thought out policies like Hillary did, he had popular policies that drew young people and poor and blue collar voters to him, but he never had an entire way of explaining how the policy would be enacted and paid for. 

Was the DNC helping HIllary more than him - yes. She is a Democrat, he is an Independent and they wanted her to be the nominee. Does that make it rigged, perhaps, but that's how it went and instead of complaining all the way to the end, his eye should have been on the general election and the good of the country. Instead he tore the Democratic party apart.

In an interview yesterday he still was not able to articulate a full explanation about how he was going to pay for his Medicare for all - where private insurance plans would be eliminated (except for plastic surgery) and doctors would be paid differently than they are now. He couldn't succinctly, or long-windedly, explain how he would implement this and not disrupt the health care of people who wanted to keep private insurance instead of weaning them off over several years. He had no real answer to how he would pay for it or how he would get it passed.

 He also refused to say that he WOULD NOT take it all the way to the convention again. I was pissed when I heard this.

That means that he cares more about Bernie than he cares about the US ousting Trump. So he is on a trajectory, again, to demonize whomever gets the nomination if it is not him and that will cause his 'followers' to, again, not vote Democratic which is the stupidest thing in the world. He says he is a Democrat, but he is an Independent, and that is obvious in this refusal to get behind whomever is the Democratic nominee.

The DNC is saying that all candidates will get behind whomever gets the nomination and most candidates have said that they would get behind the nominee even if it is not them. That makes Bernie a person who cares about his political ambitions and power over the good of the country. We have lived with that for long enough. No candidate should be even thinking of contesting the nominee. It is the reason why Democrats can't have nice things. In 2016 or in 2020, if he goes through with this plan. 

That is how he helps Republicans win. Not country first, Bernie first.

njnancy

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

dignin said:

OnWis97 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

Given how important I view this election: I'm pulling for the person that is going to make the non-voters feel like getting off the couch and voting FOR them (as opposed to against Trump).  

Surely Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden will get all the non voters and young people off their couch and out to vote.

No change you can believe in.

This is the big danger of selecting Biden as the nominee. 

Biden would probably win fewer than 10 states.

"Trump sucks" is not enough for a democrat to win. If America were a better place, it would be.

California,  new York,  new Jersey,  Virginia,  Delaware,  DC, Oregon,  Washington,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Colorado,  Vermont,  New Mexico are all locks.  
Which of these states does Biden not win that a more liberal candidate does win?

First, it's not about a "more liberal" candidate.  If anything, "more liberal" is a bad idea and plays into the "SOCIALIST!" theme.  

But my point was that I doubt Biden's going to increase the number of Dem voters; he's going to be more "Kerry" than "Obama."  Ten states?  OK you got me...He should roughly win the states that Hillary won, minus Minnesota.  If they dems have a chance, it's not going to be someone older than Trump.  He also might be the best candidate to hasten the Blexit movement.

So you're arguing for a centrist candidate that isn't Biden? Sure im fine with that.  I like Harris for example.  But she needs to break out. I disagree with your premise.  I think Biden draws in some center right people.  I guess the only question is whether he loses much on his left.  But I think he is the best shot at winning PA, MI and Wisconsin.  I don't see him losing MN.

To be frank, I'm not even sure who I'm arguing for...

I just think it's primarily about personality...and to me that's not really Biden.

But to whatever degree right/left/issues can cost someone votes, I think Biden would push some liberals to a third party...but perhaps gathering moderates would offset that?  I think he might struggle with the black vote more than most dems.  Blexit is picking up steam and Biden is probably the only candidate for whom racism could be a label levied by the left (see his work with segregationists and his role in mass incarceration).

Biden is actually holding the largest African American vote....and it's not even close. I saw in a poll he's polling at 62% with African Americans. I think his problem is losing this base the more he talks. Well, not the more he talks, but the more the other candidates get exposure.

Interesting...I do think time could be the enemy for him in this regard.  

Why do you think "blexit" is a real thing and not just propaganda? I have not seen any consistent numbers showing Trump has made any inroads with African Americans. 

Trump does not have 'hidden' black supporters. He has 'hidden' white supporters who will say one thing and then vote for him, but that is not true in the African American community. There are black people who voted for him but in no way is there any large bloc of black Trump voters.

Latin American supporters are there, which boggles my  mind. 

Blexit is a word I have never heard of and is about as intelligent as Brexit was. 

OnWis97

Jearlpam0925 said:

This race comes down to six states in the General: Florida, PA, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. I think Ohio is a lost cause (sorry OH residents, not trying to shit on you), but Fuckface won by nearly 500k votes last time. I don't even think putting any resources into the state is worth it. Dems can get back PA, MI, and WI with even a modicum of effort better than last Clinton did - she didn't even wink at Wisconsin. 

And I think any candidate that comes out from the Dems can get those states.

And I'll go out on a limb and say Arizona and Georgia can be gotten.

Every time I've seen statements like this, dating back probably to Clinton's first election, it's reinforced my feelings about the electoral college.  Every time, swing states matter. 

On the plus side, I live in Minnesota and two of those are border states.  Maybe Pearl Jam will visit... 

benjs

njnancy said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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?

And in answer to @Spiritual_Chaos -

Bernie had lost way before the convention. He refused to drop out and went all the way to the convention where there was division and fighting over platform issues, the head of the DNC was forced to resign and his 'followers' did not have the best intentions of the country in mind due to their leader.  They were loyal to Bernie, not to beating Trump. They were, and are, obnoxious - at least the loyalest portion of them. 

Sanders was a very appealing Senator to me and when he was getting large crowds with his  ideas I thought it was great, at first. As he developed a 'following', he began to think of himself more than the country. If he really cared about who would win the general election, he would have left the race much earlier, there was no reason to go through all 50 states - the numbers did not add up but he was fueled by his crowds and he began to tell his crowds that they would go all the way and fight to the end. He did not have thought out policies like Hillary did, he had popular policies that drew young people and poor and blue collar voters to him, but he never had an entire way of explaining how the policy would be enacted and paid for. 

Was the DNC helping HIllary more than him - yes. She is a Democrat, he is an Independent and they wanted her to be the nominee. Does that make it rigged, perhaps, but that's how it went and instead of complaining all the way to the end, his eye should have been on the general election and the good of the country. Instead he tore the Democratic party apart.

In an interview yesterday he still was not able to articulate a full explanation about how he was going to pay for his Medicare for all - where private insurance plans would be eliminated (except for plastic surgery) and doctors would be paid differently than they are now. He couldn't succinctly, or long-windedly, explain how he would implement this and not disrupt the health care of people who wanted to keep private insurance instead of weaning them off over several years. He had no real answer to how he would pay for it or how he would get it passed.

 He also refused to say that he WOULD NOT take it all the way to the convention again. I was pissed when I heard this.

That means that he cares more about Bernie than he cares about the US ousting Trump. So he is on a trajectory, again, to demonize whomever gets the nomination if it is not him and that will cause his 'followers' to, again, not vote Democratic which is the stupidest thing in the world. He says he is a Democrat, but he is an Independent, and that is obvious in this refusal to get behind whomever is the Democratic nominee.

The DNC is saying that all candidates will get behind whomever gets the nomination and most candidates have said that they would get behind the nominee even if it is not them. That makes Bernie a person who cares about his political ambitions and power over the good of the country. We have lived with that for long enough. No candidate should be even thinking of contesting the nominee. It is the reason why Democrats can't have nice things. In 2016 or in 2020, if he goes through with this plan. 

That is how he helps Republicans win. Not country first, Bernie first.

I think the danger of running on an uncompromising platform is that you inevitably breed uncompromising voters who are too focused on the battle to consider the war, and unwilling to compromise on their votes. Wanting incremental progress is progressive, as is wanting major/immediate progress - but as you said, a country first stance would be recognizing that without the President being a DNC candidate, further regression/deterioration will be the reality. And that ain't progressive at all - not a little, not a lot.

Jearlpam0925

njnancy said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

dignin said:

OnWis97 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

is anybody going to watch the debates? personally I have zero interest. i am fucking exhausted by politics.

the dems should not try to even sway trump supporters. they never will. they are better served by focusing on getting people out to the polls. the people that did not vote are who got trump elected.

Given how important I view this election: I'm pulling for the person that is going to make the non-voters feel like getting off the couch and voting FOR them (as opposed to against Trump).  

Surely Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden will get all the non voters and young people off their couch and out to vote.

No change you can believe in.

This is the big danger of selecting Biden as the nominee. 

Biden would probably win fewer than 10 states.

"Trump sucks" is not enough for a democrat to win. If America were a better place, it would be.

California,  new York,  new Jersey,  Virginia,  Delaware,  DC, Oregon,  Washington,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Colorado,  Vermont,  New Mexico are all locks.  
Which of these states does Biden not win that a more liberal candidate does win?

First, it's not about a "more liberal" candidate.  If anything, "more liberal" is a bad idea and plays into the "SOCIALIST!" theme.  

But my point was that I doubt Biden's going to increase the number of Dem voters; he's going to be more "Kerry" than "Obama."  Ten states?  OK you got me...He should roughly win the states that Hillary won, minus Minnesota.  If they dems have a chance, it's not going to be someone older than Trump.  He also might be the best candidate to hasten the Blexit movement.

So you're arguing for a centrist candidate that isn't Biden? Sure im fine with that.  I like Harris for example.  But she needs to break out. I disagree with your premise.  I think Biden draws in some center right people.  I guess the only question is whether he loses much on his left.  But I think he is the best shot at winning PA, MI and Wisconsin.  I don't see him losing MN.

To be frank, I'm not even sure who I'm arguing for...

I just think it's primarily about personality...and to me that's not really Biden.

But to whatever degree right/left/issues can cost someone votes, I think Biden would push some liberals to a third party...but perhaps gathering moderates would offset that?  I think he might struggle with the black vote more than most dems.  Blexit is picking up steam and Biden is probably the only candidate for whom racism could be a label levied by the left (see his work with segregationists and his role in mass incarceration).

Biden is actually holding the largest African American vote....and it's not even close. I saw in a poll he's polling at 62% with African Americans. I think his problem is losing this base the more he talks. Well, not the more he talks, but the more the other candidates get exposure.

Interesting...I do think time could be the enemy for him in this regard.  

Why do you think "blexit" is a real thing and not just propaganda? I have not seen any consistent numbers showing Trump has made any inroads with African Americans. 

There is a huge difference between liberal and progressive. Sure, liberals started calling themselves progressives back when Repubs made it a dirty word, but there is a huge difference and people are starting to go back to calling themselves what is true to their ideology.

Biden is a liberal who appeals to moderates.

Warren is a progressive who believes in Capitalism (and she was robbed of that position in the Obama administration, she would have been perfect).

Sanders is a socialist or democratic socialist who does not believe in Capitalism and does not appeal to the largest Democratic voting bloc - blacks, esp black women.

I think that Biden and Warren would be a great ticket. They both have enormous intellect in various subjects and they would compliment each other with their specialized areas. But I have yet to make up my mind. 

Julian Castro is exceptionally qualified for the job and has many policy plans but has been overlooked. 

Amy Klobuchar is a moderate who I like very much. She is pragmatic. 

Harris would make a kick ass AG.

Buttigieg will make an outstanding President one day.

And when it comes to socialism and Trump sticking that label on everyone, there is easy answer to that (as long as people don't campaign on really outrageous things that are not in the forefront of voters minds).  If you don't like socialism, then give up Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Disability and the VA. All socialist programs. Socialized programs can exist in a democratic republic which embraces capitalism.

Those who will continue to judge according to Trump's twitter feed are lost souls and not part of the voting base that Democrats are reaching out to.


I will absolutely be watching the debate tonight and tomorrow - I think it is extremely important and any other things I need to do can be taken care of before or after or at another time. I want us to win and I want to be informed. 

Holy crap this is so good. Kudos. Looking forward to tonight! Happy viewing, everyone!

Halifax2TheMax

Bernie has said that he won’t commit to the party’s eventual nominee because the system is rigged. Fuck him. Throw his ass to the curb. Disinvite him from the Dem debates. Or his ass should officially switch affiliations and agree to support the eventual nominee. Prick.