The Democratic Presidential Debates

Lerxst1992

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dignin said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

.

Taxing billionaires 6% every  year is dangerous. The only thing it is likely to do is get trump reelected. 

The majority of their wealth is in stock and property. In order to pay taxes they will need to sell and liquidate.

This could create a vicious cycle where hundreds of billions in stocks and properties being sold to pay taxes drives down the stock and real estate markets. 

So if this creates a situation where the combined effect causes wealth to decline 10% a year initially, how does that impact GDP or employment?

Oh no, that would mean that the average American could maybe buy property or a single share of a public company that they’ve actually heard of. 

The horror.

Does any of that mean a 6% decline in market values would not create a recession?

A recession is a foregone conclusion at this point, with or without a wealth tax.

We've seen our way through recessions caused by worse (in)action(s).

We have recessions and we have ones like 2008 which are entirely different. 

My concern is a 6% wealth tax is significant. It can cause a recession on it's own by forcing the wealthy to sell 6% of their assets every year, creating  a perpetual sellers market. 6% is so significant that Warren constantly lies about it by referring to it as 2%

Besides causing a downward spiral in stock and real estate markets, the tax collections would also spiral downward if all this selling leads to collapsing markets.

So we'd be locked into at least $5 to 6 trillion in new spending and stuck with trillions of new debt each year as tax collections decline.

I don't have a horse in this race, but I am beholden to historical facts and tend to shun hyperbole. That being said, the tax rate on the wealthy (hell, even the middle class) has been way higher in our lifetimes, and the economy soldiered on just fine. Greedy fucks still have Ugland House.

We have not  had a tax on total  wealth.  Raising income taxes is fine. If you earn income you have a flow of income accessible for tax payments.

Wealth tax hits unrealized gains or losses and forces liquidation of assets, which will have an impact on markets.

Say your assets were all tied up on your family farm. And your businesses just about break even.  Are you going to sell 2 to 6% of your assets every year to pay a tax? Is this reasonable?

dankind

Lerxst1992 said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dignin said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

.

Taxing billionaires 6% every  year is dangerous. The only thing it is likely to do is get trump reelected. 

The majority of their wealth is in stock and property. In order to pay taxes they will need to sell and liquidate.

This could create a vicious cycle where hundreds of billions in stocks and properties being sold to pay taxes drives down the stock and real estate markets. 

So if this creates a situation where the combined effect causes wealth to decline 10% a year initially, how does that impact GDP or employment?

Oh no, that would mean that the average American could maybe buy property or a single share of a public company that they’ve actually heard of. 

The horror.

Does any of that mean a 6% decline in market values would not create a recession?

A recession is a foregone conclusion at this point, with or without a wealth tax.

We've seen our way through recessions caused by worse (in)action(s).

We have recessions and we have ones like 2008 which are entirely different. 

My concern is a 6% wealth tax is significant. It can cause a recession on it's own by forcing the wealthy to sell 6% of their assets every year, creating  a perpetual sellers market. 6% is so significant that Warren constantly lies about it by referring to it as 2%

Besides causing a downward spiral in stock and real estate markets, the tax collections would also spiral downward if all this selling leads to collapsing markets.

So we'd be locked into at least $5 to 6 trillion in new spending and stuck with trillions of new debt each year as tax collections decline.

I don't have a horse in this race, but I am beholden to historical facts and tend to shun hyperbole. That being said, the tax rate on the wealthy (hell, even the middle class) has been way higher in our lifetimes, and the economy soldiered on just fine. Greedy fucks still have Ugland House.

We have not  had a tax on total  wealth.  Raising income taxes is fine. If you earn income you have a flow of income accessible for tax payments.

Wealth tax hits unrealized gains or losses and forces liquidation of assets, which will have an impact on markets.

Say your assets were all tied up on your family farm. And your businesses just about break even.  Are you going to sell 2 to 6% of your assets every year to pay a tax? Is this reasonable?

Your whole hypothetical is unreasonable. 

Lerxst1992

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dignin said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

.

Taxing billionaires 6% every  year is dangerous. The only thing it is likely to do is get trump reelected. 

The majority of their wealth is in stock and property. In order to pay taxes they will need to sell and liquidate.

This could create a vicious cycle where hundreds of billions in stocks and properties being sold to pay taxes drives down the stock and real estate markets. 

So if this creates a situation where the combined effect causes wealth to decline 10% a year initially, how does that impact GDP or employment?

Oh no, that would mean that the average American could maybe buy property or a single share of a public company that they’ve actually heard of. 

The horror.

Does any of that mean a 6% decline in market values would not create a recession?

A recession is a foregone conclusion at this point, with or without a wealth tax.

We've seen our way through recessions caused by worse (in)action(s).

We have recessions and we have ones like 2008 which are entirely different. 

My concern is a 6% wealth tax is significant. It can cause a recession on it's own by forcing the wealthy to sell 6% of their assets every year, creating  a perpetual sellers market. 6% is so significant that Warren constantly lies about it by referring to it as 2%

Besides causing a downward spiral in stock and real estate markets, the tax collections would also spiral downward if all this selling leads to collapsing markets.

So we'd be locked into at least $5 to 6 trillion in new spending and stuck with trillions of new debt each year as tax collections decline.

I don't have a horse in this race, but I am beholden to historical facts and tend to shun hyperbole. That being said, the tax rate on the wealthy (hell, even the middle class) has been way higher in our lifetimes, and the economy soldiered on just fine. Greedy fucks still have Ugland House.

We have not  had a tax on total  wealth.  Raising income taxes is fine. If you earn income you have a flow of income accessible for tax payments.

Wealth tax hits unrealized gains or losses and forces liquidation of assets, which will have an impact on markets.

Say your assets were all tied up on your family farm. And your businesses just about break even.  Are you going to sell 2 to 6% of your assets every year to pay a tax? Is this reasonable?

Your whole hypothetical is unreasonable. 

6% wealth tax, 15% social security surtax, 20% surtax on capital gains plus rolling back trump 2017 tax cuts. If you dont like it, no Ugland House for you. 40% exit tax.

Just to name a few. 

I've been a tax and spend liberal most of my life but Warren is playing with fire. All these tax proposals are a gift for trump and the GOP 

mickeyrat

you know its interesting, Rs passed tax hikes and a budget under Clinton that ran a surplus, a surplus that could pay down the debt .

Enter Bush. Repeal that tax hike, give a rebate back to tax payers, implement a new part to medicare that was unpaid for and started 2 unfunded wars. Eroded certain banking laws and damn near killed the country as a result.

Enter Obama, utter refusal to work with the man. agrees to a predeal freezing certain areas of spending with the proviso that a broader deal was going to be had. again utter refusal to work with the man. works toward reducing spending , cuts it in half. Implements a law written by conservatives called a socialist.

Enter trump/ trots out the same tired old lie of tax cuts with trickle down. explodes the debt for the foreseeable future. lies cheats and steals for the taxpayers.

brianlux

Is anybody else who does not want to see Trump re-elected beginning to feel a bit concerned about the election coming up in a bit less than a year?  Here are the options as I see them, listed in order of their current popularity according to RealClear Politics:

Biden (26%).  Good old uncle Joe.  Hell of a nice guy but is he up to it?  I'm thinking he's slowed down a bit too much and were it not for wanting Trump out, he would probably much rather go fishing.  Can he beat Trump anyway?  Not if he can't shake that "I'm old and a bit disoriented" look.  I know that look.  I see it in the mirror on many a morning.

Warren (20.8%).  A few years ago I would have been ecstatic at the chances of Warren running for president.  But then she admitted ("sort of admitted" I believe it was the Washington Post put it) lying about the Native American thing.  I'm almost as fanatical about disliking lying as John "Johnny Rotten" Lydon.  This doesn't sit well with me... or much of the voting public.  Will this have proven to be her undoing?

Bernie Sanders (17.8).  Bernie has some great progressive ideas but I'm seriously concerned he takes them too far to the edge for the average American and probably would lose to Trump.  But then that says worse things about the average American, doesn't it?  Also, dItto that as-above image in the mirror thing.

Buttigieg (8%).  This is the guy I want to stand behind but at his current 8%, the chances are so ultra thin. 

All the rest are just minor footnotes at this point.

And add to all of this the all raising their hands to give illegal immigrants health coverage incident.  Show me how this isn't handing a shit load of votes over to Trump.  It's not that I don't care about the well being of the illegal immigrants, but how well would we suppose those people will do in a situation with another 4 years of Trump as POTUS? 

In the early going, I am feeling very concerned about what is going to go down a year from now. 

mrussel1

brianlux said:

Is anybody else who does not want to see Trump re-elected beginning to feel a bit concerned about the election coming up in a bit less than a year?  Here are the options as I see them, listed in order of their current popularity according to RealClear Politics:

Biden (26%).  Good old uncle Joe.  Hell of a nice guy but is he up to it?  I'm thinking he's slowed down a bit too much and were it not for wanting Trump out, he would probably much rather go fishing.  Can he beat Trump anyway?  Not if he can't shake that "I'm old and a bit disoriented" look.  I know that look.  I see it in the mirror on many a morning.

Warren (20.8%).  A few years ago I would have been ecstatic at the chances of Warren running for president.  But then she admitted ("sort of admitted" I believe it was the Washington Post put it) lying about the Native American thing.  I'm almost as fanatical about disliking lying as John "Johnny Rotten" Lydon.  This doesn't sit well with me... or much of the voting public.  Will this have proven to be her undoing?

Bernie Sanders (17.8).  Bernie has some great progressive ideas but I'm seriously concerned he takes them too far to the edge for the average American and probably would lose to Trump.  But then that says worse things about the average American, doesn't it?  Also, dItto that as-above image in the mirror thing.

Buttigieg (8%).  This is the guy I want to stand behind but at his current 8%, the chances are so ultra thin. 

All the rest are just minor footnotes at this point.

And add to all of this the all raising their hands to give illegal immigrants health coverage incident.  Show me how this isn't handing a shit load of votes over to Trump.  It's not that I don't care about the well being of the illegal immigrants, but how well would we suppose those people will do in a situation with another 4 years of Trump as POTUS? 

In the early going, I am feeling very concerned about what is going to go down a year from now. 

I think this is normal.  We still have plenty of time to refine arguments,  move to the center,  etc.

I like Pete a lot.  I like his perspective on life,  temperament,  etc.  And he honestly has surpassed Warren in momentum.  There will be more shifts in momentum as well.  

PJ_Soul

I think it's a really big mistake to hold that First Nations heritage thing against Warren.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

I think it's a really big mistake to hold that First Nations heritage thing against Warren.

Personally, I think it's a minor issue and I like her a lot.  But why did she do that and how will it affect her chances of winning?  Those are the important questions.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Is anybody else who does not want to see Trump re-elected beginning to feel a bit concerned about the election coming up in a bit less than a year?  Here are the options as I see them, listed in order of their current popularity according to RealClear Politics:

Biden (26%).  Good old uncle Joe.  Hell of a nice guy but is he up to it?  I'm thinking he's slowed down a bit too much and were it not for wanting Trump out, he would probably much rather go fishing.  Can he beat Trump anyway?  Not if he can't shake that "I'm old and a bit disoriented" look.  I know that look.  I see it in the mirror on many a morning.

Warren (20.8%).  A few years ago I would have been ecstatic at the chances of Warren running for president.  But then she admitted ("sort of admitted" I believe it was the Washington Post put it) lying about the Native American thing.  I'm almost as fanatical about disliking lying as John "Johnny Rotten" Lydon.  This doesn't sit well with me... or much of the voting public.  Will this have proven to be her undoing?

Bernie Sanders (17.8).  Bernie has some great progressive ideas but I'm seriously concerned he takes them too far to the edge for the average American and probably would lose to Trump.  But then that says worse things about the average American, doesn't it?  Also, dItto that as-above image in the mirror thing.

Buttigieg (8%).  This is the guy I want to stand behind but at his current 8%, the chances are so ultra thin. 

All the rest are just minor footnotes at this point.

And add to all of this the all raising their hands to give illegal immigrants health coverage incident.  Show me how this isn't handing a shit load of votes over to Trump.  It's not that I don't care about the well being of the illegal immigrants, but how well would we suppose those people will do in a situation with another 4 years of Trump as POTUS? 

In the early going, I am feeling very concerned about what is going to go down a year from now. 

I think this is normal.  We still have plenty of time to refine arguments,  move to the center,  etc.

I like Pete a lot.  I like his perspective on life,  temperament,  etc.  And he honestly has surpassed Warren in momentum.  There will be more shifts in momentum as well.  

I hope yo are right, M.  I really hope things com together better over the next 11 1/2 months!

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Is anybody else who does not want to see Trump re-elected beginning to feel a bit concerned about the election coming up in a bit less than a year?  Here are the options as I see them, listed in order of their current popularity according to RealClear Politics:

Biden (26%).  Good old uncle Joe.  Hell of a nice guy but is he up to it?  I'm thinking he's slowed down a bit too much and were it not for wanting Trump out, he would probably much rather go fishing.  Can he beat Trump anyway?  Not if he can't shake that "I'm old and a bit disoriented" look.  I know that look.  I see it in the mirror on many a morning.

Warren (20.8%).  A few years ago I would have been ecstatic at the chances of Warren running for president.  But then she admitted ("sort of admitted" I believe it was the Washington Post put it) lying about the Native American thing.  I'm almost as fanatical about disliking lying as John "Johnny Rotten" Lydon.  This doesn't sit well with me... or much of the voting public.  Will this have proven to be her undoing?

Bernie Sanders (17.8).  Bernie has some great progressive ideas but I'm seriously concerned he takes them too far to the edge for the average American and probably would lose to Trump.  But then that says worse things about the average American, doesn't it?  Also, dItto that as-above image in the mirror thing.

Buttigieg (8%).  This is the guy I want to stand behind but at his current 8%, the chances are so ultra thin. 

All the rest are just minor footnotes at this point.

And add to all of this the all raising their hands to give illegal immigrants health coverage incident.  Show me how this isn't handing a shit load of votes over to Trump.  It's not that I don't care about the well being of the illegal immigrants, but how well would we suppose those people will do in a situation with another 4 years of Trump as POTUS? 

In the early going, I am feeling very concerned about what is going to go down a year from now. 

I think this is normal.  We still have plenty of time to refine arguments,  move to the center,  etc.

I like Pete a lot.  I like his perspective on life,  temperament,  etc.  And he honestly has surpassed Warren in momentum.  There will be more shifts in momentum as well.  

I hope yo are right, M.  I really hope things com together better over the next 11 1/2 months!

If you remember,  there was a pretty big divide between Obama and Clinton supporters in 08.  But that got healed,  helped greatly by Hillary being promised the SOS position.  It all worked out. I have faith. 

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

I think it's a really big mistake to hold that First Nations heritage thing against Warren.

Personally, I think it's a minor issue and I like her a lot.  But why did she do that and how will it affect her chances of winning?  Those are the important questions.

She didn't make a decision to lie. She repeated what she had been taught to her by her entire family for her entire life. It turned out that what she and her family regarded as their history was wrong. It was completely innocent on her part, and I actually feel bad for her just because she learned that part of her identity was based on incorrect info.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

I think it's a really big mistake to hold that First Nations heritage thing against Warren.

Personally, I think it's a minor issue and I like her a lot.  But why did she do that and how will it affect her chances of winning?  Those are the important questions.

She didn't make a decision to lie. She repeated what she had been taught to her by her entire family for her entire life. It turned out that what she and her family regarded as their history was wrong. It was completely innocent on her part, and I actually feel bad for her just because she learned that part of her identity was based on incorrect info.

not to mention, the right goes apeshit when the left apparently lies when they didn't even lie, but defend everything Trump lies about. it's baffling. 

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Is anybody else who does not want to see Trump re-elected beginning to feel a bit concerned about the election coming up in a bit less than a year?  Here are the options as I see them, listed in order of their current popularity according to RealClear Politics:

Biden (26%).  Good old uncle Joe.  Hell of a nice guy but is he up to it?  I'm thinking he's slowed down a bit too much and were it not for wanting Trump out, he would probably much rather go fishing.  Can he beat Trump anyway?  Not if he can't shake that "I'm old and a bit disoriented" look.  I know that look.  I see it in the mirror on many a morning.

Warren (20.8%).  A few years ago I would have been ecstatic at the chances of Warren running for president.  But then she admitted ("sort of admitted" I believe it was the Washington Post put it) lying about the Native American thing.  I'm almost as fanatical about disliking lying as John "Johnny Rotten" Lydon.  This doesn't sit well with me... or much of the voting public.  Will this have proven to be her undoing?

Bernie Sanders (17.8).  Bernie has some great progressive ideas but I'm seriously concerned he takes them too far to the edge for the average American and probably would lose to Trump.  But then that says worse things about the average American, doesn't it?  Also, dItto that as-above image in the mirror thing.

Buttigieg (8%).  This is the guy I want to stand behind but at his current 8%, the chances are so ultra thin. 

All the rest are just minor footnotes at this point.

And add to all of this the all raising their hands to give illegal immigrants health coverage incident.  Show me how this isn't handing a shit load of votes over to Trump.  It's not that I don't care about the well being of the illegal immigrants, but how well would we suppose those people will do in a situation with another 4 years of Trump as POTUS? 

In the early going, I am feeling very concerned about what is going to go down a year from now. 

I think this is normal.  We still have plenty of time to refine arguments,  move to the center,  etc.

I like Pete a lot.  I like his perspective on life,  temperament,  etc.  And he honestly has surpassed Warren in momentum.  There will be more shifts in momentum as well.  

I hope yo are right, M.  I really hope things com together better over the next 11 1/2 months!

If you remember,  there was a pretty big divide between Obama and Clinton supporters in 08.  But that got healed,  helped greatly by Hillary being promised the SOS position.  It all worked out. I have faith. 

Faith is what I probably need more of.  Or like Lou Reed said, "You need a busload of faith to get by".

mcgruff10

Obama cautions Democratic hopefuls on tacking too far left

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-cautions-democratic-hopefuls-tacking-030432024.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Barack Obama on Friday warned the Democratic field of White House hopefuls not to veer too far to the left, a move he said would alienate many who would otherwise be open to voting for the party’s nominee next year.

Though Obama did not mention anyone by name, the message delivered before a room of Democratic donors in Washington was a clear word of caution about the candidacies of Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The two have called for massive structural changes — and in Sanders’ case “revolution” — that would dramatically alter the role of government in people’s lives.

The centrist wing of the party has warned for months that a far-left nominee could alienate moderate Republicans and independent voters needed to oust President Donald Trump.

“The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it's important for us not to lose sight of that,” Obama said. “There are a lot of persuadable voters and there are a lot of Democrats out there who just want to see things make sense. They just don't want to see crazy stuff. They want to see things a little more fair, they want to see things a little more just. And how we approach that I think will be important.”

Obama has largely refrained from publicly opining on the Democratic primary, which has exposed a growing rift between an ascendant progressive wing of the party and old-guard centrists like his former vice president, Joe Biden. But on Friday he said he felt compelled to weigh in because some of the loudest and most strident voices, particularly on social media, aren’t representative of where most in the party are at.

Immigration and health care are two issues he cited as cases where Democratic candidates are out of sync with public sentiment.

“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality and the fact that voters, including the Democratic voters and certainly persuadable independents or even moderate Republicans, are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds,” Obama said.

Obama delivered his remarks at a gathering of the Democracy Alliance, a group of wealthy Democrats who raise large sums for the party. He was interviewed by Stacey Abrams, a rising star in the party who narrowly lost the Georgia governor’s race last year.

He also sought also to ease jittery Democrats who have been wringing their hands over the size of the sprawling field, which some worry will lead to a prolonged contest that will leave the eventual nominee with limited time to prepare for the general election.

“I just have to remind you that I had a very robust primary,” Obama said. “Not only did I win ultimately a remarkably tough and lengthy primary process with Hillary Clinton, but people forget that even before that we had a big field of really serious, accomplished people.”

mickeyrat

mcgruff10 said:

Obama cautions Democratic hopefuls on tacking too far left

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-cautions-democratic-hopefuls-tacking-030432024.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Barack Obama on Friday warned the Democratic field of White House hopefuls not to veer too far to the left, a move he said would alienate many who would otherwise be open to voting for the party’s nominee next year.

Though Obama did not mention anyone by name, the message delivered before a room of Democratic donors in Washington was a clear word of caution about the candidacies of Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The two have called for massive structural changes — and in Sanders’ case “revolution” — that would dramatically alter the role of government in people’s lives.

The centrist wing of the party has warned for months that a far-left nominee could alienate moderate Republicans and independent voters needed to oust President Donald Trump.

“The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it's important for us not to lose sight of that,” Obama said. “There are a lot of persuadable voters and there are a lot of Democrats out there who just want to see things make sense. They just don't want to see crazy stuff. They want to see things a little more fair, they want to see things a little more just. And how we approach that I think will be important.”

Obama has largely refrained from publicly opining on the Democratic primary, which has exposed a growing rift between an ascendant progressive wing of the party and old-guard centrists like his former vice president, Joe Biden. But on Friday he said he felt compelled to weigh in because some of the loudest and most strident voices, particularly on social media, aren’t representative of where most in the party are at.

Immigration and health care are two issues he cited as cases where Democratic candidates are out of sync with public sentiment.

“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality and the fact that voters, including the Democratic voters and certainly persuadable independents or even moderate Republicans, are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds,” Obama said.

Obama delivered his remarks at a gathering of the Democracy Alliance, a group of wealthy Democrats who raise large sums for the party. He was interviewed by Stacey Abrams, a rising star in the party who narrowly lost the Georgia governor’s race last year.

He also sought also to ease jittery Democrats who have been wringing their hands over the size of the sprawling field, which some worry will lead to a prolonged contest that will leave the eventual nominee with limited time to prepare for the general election.

“I just have to remind you that I had a very robust primary,” Obama said. “Not only did I win ultimately a remarkably tough and lengthy primary process with Hillary Clinton, but people forget that even before that we had a big field of really serious, accomplished people.”

can I have more , sir?

brianlux

I'm not sure how many here believe in the Deep State Theory, (I find the whole thing rather disjointed) but having read a bit about all that lately, a question comes to mind:  If there is a Deep State and it is this Deep State is, as some declare, in cahoots with a Democratic Party's plot that is working toward the impeachment of Trump, why has the Dem Party not been able to use that tremendous power they supposedly wield to come up with a rock solid Dem candidate for the presidential election of 2020? 

benjs

brianlux said:

I'm not sure how many here believe in the Deep State Theory, (I find the whole thing rather disjointed) but having read a bit about all that lately, a question comes to mind:  If there is a Deep State and it is this Deep State is, as some declare, in cahoots with a Democratic Party's plot that is working toward the impeachment of Trump, why has the Dem Party not been able to use that tremendous power they supposedly wield to come up with a rock solid Dem candidate for the presidential election of 2020? 

Congratulations, Brian, you seem to have just identified gaping hole #437 in Deep State Theory!

brianlux

benjs said:

brianlux said:

I'm not sure how many here believe in the Deep State Theory, (I find the whole thing rather disjointed) but having read a bit about all that lately, a question comes to mind:  If there is a Deep State and it is this Deep State is, as some declare, in cahoots with a Democratic Party's plot that is working toward the impeachment of Trump, why has the Dem Party not been able to use that tremendous power they supposedly wield to come up with a rock solid Dem candidate for the presidential election of 2020? 

Congratulations, Brian, you seem to have just identified gaping hole #437 in Deep State Theory!

I'm not surprised there are so many holes in the theory, Ben.  And yet otherwise perfectly intelligent people obsess over it!

A few years ago, Rolling Stone summarized it well:

"Is there actually a deep state? If you mean entrenched bureaucracy, then of course there is. If you mean a government-wide conspiracy, then the answer is almost certainly no."

Or as this article ( https://www.lawfareblog.com/deep-state-myth-and-real-executive-branch-bureaucracy ) describes it,  "...other accounts use the term more loosely to identify what are probably better described as elite interests and power brokers, a quite possibly troubling but not terribly surprising—or secret—phenomenon, nor one that is unique to Washington."

What's disturbing is that Trump is using these fears of  "Deep State" to rally his rabid fans into believing the Democratic party is part of this so-called conspiracy.  Which takes us back to why then does the Democratic party not have a stronger candidate in the running?  Let's just call it #437. 

Like many, I'm frustrated with having no Dem I can feel really strong about, but I will vote strictly party-line Democrat this time around, even knowing the California electoral college votes will go Dem, regardless.  (I voted Green Party in 2016 knowing the electoral college would go to Hillary.)  In 2020, for me, it has to be, at the very least, a protest vote against Trump.

dankind

mcgruff10 said:

Obama cautions Democratic hopefuls on tacking too far left

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-cautions-democratic-hopefuls-tacking-030432024.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Barack Obama on Friday warned the Democratic field of White House hopefuls not to veer too far to the left, a move he said would alienate many who would otherwise be open to voting for the party’s nominee next year.

Though Obama did not mention anyone by name, the message delivered before a room of Democratic donors in Washington was a clear word of caution about the candidacies of Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The two have called for massive structural changes — and in Sanders’ case “revolution” — that would dramatically alter the role of government in people’s lives.

The centrist wing of the party has warned for months that a far-left nominee could alienate moderate Republicans and independent voters needed to oust President Donald Trump.

“The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it's important for us not to lose sight of that,” Obama said. “There are a lot of persuadable voters and there are a lot of Democrats out there who just want to see things make sense. They just don't want to see crazy stuff. They want to see things a little more fair, they want to see things a little more just. And how we approach that I think will be important.”

Obama has largely refrained from publicly opining on the Democratic primary, which has exposed a growing rift between an ascendant progressive wing of the party and old-guard centrists like his former vice president, Joe Biden. But on Friday he said he felt compelled to weigh in because some of the loudest and most strident voices, particularly on social media, aren’t representative of where most in the party are at.

Immigration and health care are two issues he cited as cases where Democratic candidates are out of sync with public sentiment.

“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality and the fact that voters, including the Democratic voters and certainly persuadable independents or even moderate Republicans, are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds,” Obama said.

Obama delivered his remarks at a gathering of the Democracy Alliance, a group of wealthy Democrats who raise large sums for the party. He was interviewed by Stacey Abrams, a rising star in the party who narrowly lost the Georgia governor’s race last year.

He also sought also to ease jittery Democrats who have been wringing their hands over the size of the sprawling field, which some worry will lead to a prolonged contest that will leave the eventual nominee with limited time to prepare for the general election.

“I just have to remind you that I had a very robust primary,” Obama said. “Not only did I win ultimately a remarkably tough and lengthy primary process with Hillary Clinton, but people forget that even before that we had a big field of really serious, accomplished people.”

OK, Boomer. 

mcgruff10

dankind said:

mcgruff10 said:

Obama cautions Democratic hopefuls on tacking too far left

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-cautions-democratic-hopefuls-tacking-030432024.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Barack Obama on Friday warned the Democratic field of White House hopefuls not to veer too far to the left, a move he said would alienate many who would otherwise be open to voting for the party’s nominee next year.

Though Obama did not mention anyone by name, the message delivered before a room of Democratic donors in Washington was a clear word of caution about the candidacies of Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The two have called for massive structural changes — and in Sanders’ case “revolution” — that would dramatically alter the role of government in people’s lives.

The centrist wing of the party has warned for months that a far-left nominee could alienate moderate Republicans and independent voters needed to oust President Donald Trump.

“The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it's important for us not to lose sight of that,” Obama said. “There are a lot of persuadable voters and there are a lot of Democrats out there who just want to see things make sense. They just don't want to see crazy stuff. They want to see things a little more fair, they want to see things a little more just. And how we approach that I think will be important.”

Obama has largely refrained from publicly opining on the Democratic primary, which has exposed a growing rift between an ascendant progressive wing of the party and old-guard centrists like his former vice president, Joe Biden. But on Friday he said he felt compelled to weigh in because some of the loudest and most strident voices, particularly on social media, aren’t representative of where most in the party are at.

Immigration and health care are two issues he cited as cases where Democratic candidates are out of sync with public sentiment.

“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality and the fact that voters, including the Democratic voters and certainly persuadable independents or even moderate Republicans, are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds,” Obama said.

Obama delivered his remarks at a gathering of the Democracy Alliance, a group of wealthy Democrats who raise large sums for the party. He was interviewed by Stacey Abrams, a rising star in the party who narrowly lost the Georgia governor’s race last year.

He also sought also to ease jittery Democrats who have been wringing their hands over the size of the sprawling field, which some worry will lead to a prolonged contest that will leave the eventual nominee with limited time to prepare for the general election.

“I just have to remind you that I had a very robust primary,” Obama said. “Not only did I win ultimately a remarkably tough and lengthy primary process with Hillary Clinton, but people forget that even before that we had a big field of really serious, accomplished people.”

OK, Boomer. 

Me?  I'm gen x baby! (1977)