U.S. Democratic Primary

[Ten oz]

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

My statement made no mention of Syria, did not quote a statement that included Syria. It was not related to Syria.

 

The statement you quoted of mine referenced the way Warren handles issues important to me and as posted that includes Syria. I cannot speak to which issues matter to you or how well you do or do not feel Warren addresses them. 

[Willie71]

I’m going to offer a bit of a different perspective on the democratic primary. If broad support from the electorate is preferred, then a couple litmus tests must be met. These are the minimum standards I hear about from progressives. 

1. No big money donors. Recent converts may be accepted, but the voting record will look at consistency with the public good vs. corporate benefit. 

 

2. A national health care solution. 

 

3. A focus on the commons. Rebuilding infrastructure, investments in education, reducing the predatory aspects of end stage capitalism. 

 

Some of these issues aren’t the main focus of people on this forum. Backing candidates who don’t embrace these ideals will likely result in a repeat of 2016. Clinton was out of touch with these issues, and the republicans had the benefit of a decades long smear campaign  to build on. I left the forum when pointing these issues out was met with incredulity. Some people weren’t even aware of what a neoliberal or third way democrat was. They are moderate republicans, calling themselves liberals. I cannot see how a third way candidate will win in 2020. The promises from decades ago, saying that people can sacrifice a bit now for a big payout later, no longer hold water. Wages are stagnant, the environment is a mess, academia is being bought out by corporate interests, and slashing spending on the commons has harmed, not benefitted most people. Small tax savings have been far eclipsed by added out of pocket expenses. 

 

Kamala Harris is not favoured by any progressives I know. Beto is better than Cruz, but not seen as a strong populist. Booker sold out people for big pharma not too long ago. 

 

Sanders, Gabbard (stood up to the DNC, and Clinton), and Warren are the strongest politicians on progressive values. Look at AOC. A candidate must speak clearly about the problems, like Trump did, but offer viable solutions. Trump promised lower cost, higher quality health care. It’s a popular idea. Even republicans outside of the 30% base love the idea. 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2019 by Willie71

[iNow]

Warren is leading an issues first campaign. We’ll see how it works out. 

Today, for example, she called for an end to the electoral college. 

Also, affordable housing. Breaking up tech giants. Then today, financial reparations for the families of former slaves. 

[StringJunky]

55 minutes ago, iNow said:

Warren is leading an issues first campaign. We’ll see how it works out. 

Today, for example, she called for an end to the electoral college. 

Also, affordable housing. Breaking up tech giants. Then today, financial reparations for the families of former slaves. 

That seems a bit weird, considering how long ago that was. Certainly, some kind of memorial effort would be good.

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Warren is leading an issues first campaign. We’ll see how it works out. 

Today, for example, she called for an end to the electoral college. 

Also, affordable housing. Breaking up tech giants. Then today, financial reparations for the families of former slaves. 

Affordable housing is the only issue there I agree with.

Ending the electoral college isn't something a Presidential candidate should tackle IMO. It is something Congress should tackle. A player mid game shouldn't be the one rewriting the rules. 

I have seen different people discussing breaking up tech giants but I don't really understand on what grounds that would be done. While very influential none are monopolies. No one is forced to use Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon (companies most cited by Warren) and they have competitors. I don't understand what those companies are doing other than being super successful which would require the govt to step in. I have concerns about the way their platforms can be used to manipulation the public but those concerns extend to all online media and not merely the popular one. 

Financial reparations for the families of former slaves seems utterly ridiculous in an environment where we can't even agree police shouldn't be shooting unarmed decedents or former slaves. Rather than floating fantasy land pipe dreams I rather see candidates address the hard issues actually being faced in communities of color. Warren isn't the only candidate guilty of this. 

 

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

That seems a bit weird, considering how long ago that was. Certainly, some kind of memorial effort would be good.

In my opinion some politicians aren't comfortable speaking directly to the issues facing communities of color. Even candidates of color have this problem as the majority of voters are not of color. Rather than make measured real world proposals which may potentially kick off discussions they don't want to have it is easier sometimes to just make large gestures of support rooted in symbolism. I think candidates are attempting to avoid the divisive discussions surrounding Black Lives Matters, kneeling during the anthem, and so on. Right wing trolls have prominently sought their ground in those discussions and I guess many candidates are afraid to kick that hornets nest. 

Many of the current Democratic Candidates are voicing various forms of reparations. It might be worth starting a thread specifically about reparations at some point to discuss them all. 

[StringJunky]

51 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Affordable housing is the only issue there I agree with.

Ending the electoral college isn't something a Presidential candidate should tackle IMO. It is something Congress should tackle. A player mid game shouldn't be the one rewriting the rules. 

I have seen different people discussing breaking up tech giants but I don't really understand on what grounds that would be done. While very influential none are monopolies. No one is forced to use Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon (companies most cited by Warren) and they have competitors. I don't understand what those companies are doing other than being super successful which would require the govt to step in. I have concerns about the way their platforms can be used to manipulation the public but those concerns extend to all online media and not merely the popular one. 

Financial reparations for the families of former slaves seems utterly ridiculous in an environment where we can't even agree police shouldn't be shooting unarmed decedents or former slaves. Rather than floating fantasy land pipe dreams I rather see candidates address the hard issues actually being faced in communities of color. Warren isn't the only candidate guilty of this. 

 

In my opinion some politicians aren't comfortable speaking directly to the issues facing communities of color. Even candidates of color have this problem as the majority of voters are not of color. Rather than make measured real world proposals which may potentially kick off discussions they don't want to have it is easier sometimes to just make large gestures of support rooted in symbolism. I think candidates are attempting to avoid the divisive discussions surrounding Black Lives Matters, kneeling during the anthem, and so on. Right wing trolls have prominently sought their ground in those discussions and I guess many candidates are afraid to kick that hornets nest. 

Many of the current Democratic Candidates are voicing various forms of reparations. It might be worth starting a thread specifically about reparations at some point to discuss them all. 

The way to honour the enslaved is to be ruthless about racism.

[Ten oz]

Just now, StringJunky said:

The way to honour the enslaved is to be ruthless about racism.

I don't think the 2020 election is or should be about slavery. 

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't think the 2020 election is or should be about slavery. 

No, but racism in general. 

[Ten oz]

Just now, StringJunky said:

No, but racism in general. 

I don't think floating reparations specifically addresses racism in the U.S. very well. Even as symbols it is far weaker than Trump's Wall, Muslim Ban, and demand everyone stand for the anthem are far more powerful. 

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Ending the electoral college isn't something a Presidential candidate should tackle IMO. It is something Congress should tackle. 

Most things presidents and candidates for president talk about require Congress to tackle. Literally, almost everything.

Your criticism on this one seems forced and rings extremely hollow for me. It applies equally to tackling universal healthcare, prison reform, affordable education , action on climate change, immigration policy, and basically every single subject every single candidate is highlighting (including Harris).

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

No one is forced to use Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon (companies most cited by Warren) and they have competitors.

Not really, no. Not even close. I’m not supportive of this proposal, but I’d at least like our opposition to be rooted in fact. The same antitrust laws that helped breakup the railroads and oil companies (who also had competitors) a century ago could be applied to the tech giants today. 

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Most things presidents and candidates for president talk about require Congress to tackle. Literally, almost everything.

Your criticism on this one seems forced and rings extremely hollow for me. It applies equally to tackling universal healthcare, prison reform, affordable education , action on climate change, immigration policy, and basically every single subject every single candidate is highlighting (including Harris).

Every other issue (climate, healthcare, etc) doesn't elect a candidate. The electoral college does. A candidate advocating for a change to the electoral college literally is advocating for a change to the way they would potentially be elected. As mentioned it is like a player trying to change the rules of a  mid game. I disagree with it. Candidates shouldn't attempt to change the rules to a race they have already entered. It ioens the door to corruption. I disagree with it whether it is Warren, Harris, Sanders, Booker, or whomever advocating it.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I rather see candidates address the hard issues actually being faced in communities of color

I’ve found proposals about housing affordability to have the most potential ROI in this space. That, and policies addressing income inequality. Warren led with ideas there as a foundation and only offered the reparations suggestion as a possible supplement (it’s not the only tool in her toolbox, I mean). 

There are lots of strong candidates. Many of them are highlighting great and important topics. Warren is just one, but she is setting the bar higher than most on having actual substance and meat to execute on the various proposals... which Congress will debate later. 

Edited March 19, 2019 by iNow

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’ve found proposals about housing affordability to have the most potential ROI in this space. That, and policies addressing income inequality. Warren led with ideas there as a foundation and only offered the reparations suppler has a possible supplement (it’s not the only tool in her toolbox, I mean). 

 

There are lots of strong candidates. Many of them are highlighting great and important topics. Warren is just one, but she is setting the bar higher than most on having actual substance and meat to execute on the various proposals... which Congress will debate later. 

My criticisms are not specific to Warren. I already acknowledge other candidates are floating the same proposals. 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Many of the current Democratic Candidates are voicing various forms of reparations. It might be worth starting a thread specifically about reparations at some point to discuss them all. 

 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

My criticisms are not specific to Warren.

Sorry, they very much were in earlier posts. Thought this was a continuation of that line of attack. Didn’t mean to misrepresent or misunderstand you. 

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

That seems a bit weird, considering how long ago that was. Certainly, some kind of memorial effort would be good.

The issue is much much broader and deeper seeded than that. It’s not about memorials or even racism, but the systematic ways for centuries blacks have been financially harmed and held back, under educated, over jailed, and under served by government.. How conscious decisions by white legislatures have hindered wealth accumulation, property ownership, and even simpler things like availability of nutritious food. 

Ta Nahasi Coats wrote about this about 5 years ago and laid out very strong arguments that I can’t do justice to. I’m undecided myself, and agree with Ten Oz that a separate thread would be best place to explore. 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Sorry, they very much were in earlier posts. Thought this was a continuation of that line of attack. Didn’t mean to misrepresent or misunderstand you. 

In generally I am dissatisfied with all the candidates so far. In my opinion a President's primary job is to be the executive of  the govt we have. There are many real world challenges afoot that I feel candidates are ignoring in favor of discussing theoretical policies that address less tangible issues. 

Whoever the President is in 2021 Syria and Yemen will still be a mess and our relationship with Saudi Arabia and Iran still will need addressing. I don't know what Harris, Warren, Booker, or etc do about North Korea. In Israel Netanyahu is about to be indicted I don't know how any of the candidates might respond to political change in Israel. There are just so many ongoing issues I am worried about that no one seems to be addressing. It is a bit depressing. New President don't take office with a fresh slate. When Obama ran in 08' he had to address Iraq, Afghanistan, the housing market collapse, deficits, and etc. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There are just so many ongoing issues I am worried about that no one seems to be addressing. It is a bit depressing.

Fortunately, there's still 230 days until the election... 

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fortunately, there's still 230 days until the election... 

I don't get the feeling the narratives will change. Trump is terrible on addressing current events and speaks in circles to avoid specifics. So I don't think the Democratic nominee will be forced to address any of the concerns I mentioned. 

Worse still I get the feeling I may no longer be ideologically aligned with the Democratic Party. At present there is only one candidate in the Democratic field I absolutely won't vote for. I consider Warren, Gillbrand, Klobuchar, Yang, O'Rourke, Harris, Booker, Buttigeg, and etc to all be superior to Trump. So I will give any of them my vote. With that said most everything I have heard from them is either fluff or positions I disagree with.

Voting purely against Trump but for nothing in particular feels hollow. 

[Willie71]

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I don't think floating reparations specifically addresses racism in the U.S. very well. Even as symbols it is far weaker than Trump's Wall, Muslim Ban, and demand everyone stand for the anthem are far more powerful. 

 

Economic justice won’t play well with staunch republicans, especially Trump’s base, but there are a lot of people who were promised a payout for sacrificing commons. Even a majority of republicans favour taxing corporations more, and expanding access to healthcare. Sanders started a massive movement on this, and newer politicians are building careerson it, such as AOC or Omar. This is the unifying message. Who is better off under Trump than they were under Obama, or BushII, or Clinton, or Reagan? Send this message home, and you will win the White House. The DNC has to let go of being republican lite, and define itself as being there for the people. Trump sold this, even though he was lying. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Willie71 said:

Economic justice won’t play well with staunch republicans, especially Trump’s base, but there are a lot of people who were promised a payout for sacrificing commons. Even a majority of republicans favour taxing corporations more, and expanding access to healthcare. Sanders started a massive movement on this, and newer politicians are building careerson it, such as AOC or Omar. This is the unifying message. Who is better off under Trump than they were under Obama, or BushII, or Clinton, or Reagan? Send this message home, and you will win the White House. The DNC has to let go of being republican lite, and define itself as being there for the people. Trump sold this, even though he was lying. 

Trump lost the popular vote by millions and numerous individuals associated with his campaign have been found guilty in court of felons. I think it is inaccurate to imply Trump the election on messaging. 

I am all for raising taxes. I am for universal healthcare. However I am also aware that the govt is over a trillion dollars in the whole annually currently and every emergency (hurricane, fires, etc) just goes straight toward debt. We need to increase taxes meaningfully just to balance the budget. The Budget request for 2020 is $4.75 trillion.Last the federal govt brought in $3.4 trillion in tax revenue. The math isn't hard to do.  So floating new programs paid for by taxes in the absences of addressing the budget we have and its shortfalls is a nonstarter for me. Not merely is it bad policy but it will never make it through Congress successfully. 

I understand the desire to elect someone with big ideas and who wants to bring about major change but we aren't starting from scratch unfortunately. Change will need to be methodical and spreed across a couple administrations if it is to realistically succeed. 

 

[iNow]

Congress owns the power of the purse. Interesting that you direct these concerns toward presidential hopefuls who have no real power to implement the policies for which they advocate. 

A presidential candidate could suggest we transfer every human to Europa. For your worries to be relevant, we’d need to be talking about House and Senste elections. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by iNow

[Willie71]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Trump lost the popular vote by millions and numerous individuals associated with his campaign have been found guilty in court of felons. I think it is inaccurate to imply Trump the election on messaging. 

I am all for raising taxes. I am for universal healthcare. However I am also aware that the govt is over a trillion dollars in the whole annually currently and every emergency (hurricane, fires, etc) just goes straight toward debt. We need to increase taxes meaningfully just to balance the budget. The Budget request for 2020 is $4.75 trillion.Last the federal govt brought in $3.4 trillion in tax revenue. The math isn't hard to do.  So floating new programs paid for by taxes in the absences of addressing the budget we have and its shortfalls is a nonstarter for me. Not merely is it bad policy but it will never make it through Congress successfully. 

I understand the desire to elect someone with big ideas and who wants to bring about major change but we aren't starting from scratch unfortunately. Change will need to be methodical and spreed across a couple administrations if it is to realistically succeed. 

 

Trump sent a message to the rust belt, combined with significant voter suppression in those states to take the win. American elections aren’t won on popular vote, there was no way Trump was going to win in California or New York, just like it was unlikely for Clinton to win in the south. When people say Clinton screwed up, we mean she miscalculated in the rust belt, where polling showed she was in real trouble. People were so desperate they chose to go for Trump (after voting for Obama previously), as more of what was promised for decades was no longer palatable. Going back to that message will work betterthis time? Maybe since Trump hasn’t delivered on any economic promises. It’s still a tough sell to say people should go back to believing in neoliberalism. We know that killed people’s livelihood. 

 

The american deficit is the result if two of two main problems. Massive overspending on the military, and ridiculously low real tax rates, the US has incredible per capital gdp. It’s a myth you can’t afford what every other developed nation can afford. Incremental change is what neoliberalism has promised for decades, and people are sick of the con. 

 

Reality is coal jobs jobs aren’t coming back. Oil jobs will decline in the next couple decades. Automation will replace labourers. There aren’t enough jobs for university graduates who carry massive debt, The US is becoming a service and entertainment economy for regular folk. It’s frightening for young people looking at what the future holds. These people need to be inspired, not placated with more incrementalism. 

[MigL]

If I was American, I would want a few things addressed...

A national Health care system with coverage for all, because it's absurd that one of the most advanced countries in the world can't care for all its people.
Stricter rules for gun availability/possession; The mass shootings and gun violence cannot be allowed to continue. This isn't the wild west anymore.
Not so much a cut-back on military spending, but rather, on the wars and policing actions the US is involved in; that is what costs big time. As the saying went; you can have a big stick, but walk softly, you don't need to use it all the time. Deterrence means not having to use it.
I don't necessarily agree with restitution for past injustices, but would like to see equal opportunity for all, in the way of subsidizing the educational system such that it is affordable to a majority of young people. If we can do it in Canada, why can't the US ?

I also don't agree with the call to change the electoral college system, Ten oz.
During the last Canadian election, the Liberals were coming from behind, and there were doubts as to whether they could win.
They promised electoral reform ( to proportional representation ) during the campaign.
This idea was quickly shelved once they won a majority, and deemed unfeasible.
I guess we'll have to wait until they lose before they start proposing it again.

[beecee]

37 minutes ago, MigL said:

Stricter rules for gun availability/possession; The mass shootings and gun violence cannot be allowed to continue. This isn't the wild west anymore.

NZ are 100% certain [within a week] to now update their gun laws in line with Australia's tough gun laws, and at the same time, wait for it, Australia is seriously considering making our tough gun laws even tougher. That would certainly eat at the craw of the NRA and Trump supporters I imagine. I did mention this in another thread.

Edited March 20, 2019 by beecee

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

A national Health care system with coverage for all, because it's absurd that one of the most advanced countries in the world can't care for all its people.
Stricter rules for gun availability/possession; The mass shootings and gun violence cannot be allowed to continue. This isn't the wild west anymore.

So, there is an interesting book by Metzl that just been out that explains to some degree how politicians manage to maintain these policies (though not necessarily why). The provocative title is "Dying by Whiteness" and the author argues that certain white folks are voting against government health programs, gun control and tax laws that would actually benefit them and actually hurting their own health in the process. The way politicians convince them to do so is by selling them as countermeasures against what they describe as criminals, lazy government moochers and Big government. In other words, they sell these measures as ways, to safeguard to position of white folks in today's society. Politicians tap into the fear that redistribution of resources may endanger to their privilege. A barely veiled implication that is sold heavily is that these social measures will take away from whites and benefit minorities. Metzl is a psychologist but has taken an epidemiological view on these policies and demonstrates that they actually hurt (poor) white folks as badly as the minorities against which those measures are supposed to be leveraged against. The interesting bit is that while policies were shaped by racial tension, the individuals do not necessarily have an explicit racist world view (and aspect that he highlighted in interviews), but politicians heavily tap into the fear of loss and the use of scapegoats.

I think despite the issues Canada may have, there a bit less fear that someone undeserved may come up. Though I am pretty sure instances likes this where folks work against their interest may also be present (I guess that is something to read up on).

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Congress owns the power of the purse. Interesting that you direct these concerns toward presidential hopefuls who have no real power to implement the policies for which they advocate. 

A presidential candidate could suggest we transfer every human to Europa. For your worries to be relevant, we’d need to be talking about House and Senste elections. 

The President is the Chief executive every agency. While they do not control the power of the purse they do have influence over any daily operations and restructuring of our current agencies. A presidential candidate should address needed reforms and operational changes that reduce can deficits and better serve the public overtime. That is what Obama and Romney's famous exchange about about the military not having as many horses and bayonets was about. Obama was advocating DOD use of more unmanned cost effective technology rather than investing in large expensive assets which require more man power. As Commander in Chief a President is well positioned to oversee such changes. Obama also use his role as Chief executive to defer action for childhood arrivals (DACA). 

A president can do a lot but restraints and checks do exist. Some things require more Congressional support than others. There is no guarantee if a Democrat wins the white house in 2020  Democrats also win the Senate. There is no guarantee Democrats would keep the house and senate in 2022 even if they were to win it in 2020. It would be awesome if Democrats controlled both the legislative branch and executive branch but as candidates for Presidents I think Harris, Warren, Booker, Castro, and everyone else need to focus on the job of President. 

7 hours ago, Willie71 said:

The american deficit is the result if two of two main problems. Massive overspending on the military, and ridiculously low real tax rates, the US has incredible per capital gdp. It’s a myth you can’t afford what every other developed nation can afford. Incremental change is what neoliberalism has promised for decades, and people are sick of the con. 

I agree that taxes are too low and military spending too high. The problem is much easier to identify that fix however. For example while I agree military spending is too high remedies for that are difficult. Between active duty and reserve the U.S. employees 2 million service members, 800,000 civilian DOD employees, over 2 million contractor jobs, over 2 million retired military members receiving benefits, and etc, etc. Bases are have been strategically placed all over the country in different congressional districts to ensure support. Military spending in a lot of ways, while miss used, has been a jobs program. Cutting military spending too quickly would cost lots of jobs and depress communities currently buoyed by military spend of which there are many. Due to annual inflation even freezing military spending has an impact on a lot of communities. A draw down is spending doesn't have an overnight solution. That isn't neoliberalism but just the reality of the situation. I wish the situation were different but it isn't. 

Taxes need to be increased just to get the budget we have balanced. We need increases for Social Security in particular. That is a can which just keeps getting kicked. 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, MigL said:

I also don't agree with the call to change the electoral college system, Ten oz.
During the last Canadian election, the Liberals were coming from behind, and there were doubts as to whether they could win.
They promised electoral reform ( to proportional representation ) during the campaign.
This idea was quickly shelved once they won a majority, and deemed unfeasible.
I guess we'll have to wait until they lose before they start proposing it again.

If a change is to be made it should be made off cycle and the President shouldn't be involved. It is a dangerous precedent to allow candidates to determine or influence how a race is called. I wouldn't trust Trump to make changes in the middle of an election and assume Trump supporters wouldn't trust the Democratic nominee to make changes (not that they have the authority to) changes either. This is one of the things that angers me so about Bernie Sanders. He entered the Democratic Primary in 2016 well aware of the rules. The Primary rules were unchanged from 2008. Sanders then proceeded to complain about those rules mid race which only created distrust and resentment all around.