2020 Presidential Election 2: The Primaries are upon us

[fraurosena]

As a foreigner who has access to healthcare for all (far from perfect btw), I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the American system and the apparent fear of Medicare for all. I think I grasp a little of how it works for you, and what the 'fears' about Medicare for all are, but I think a lot of Americans are missing the real cause of the healthcare problems in their country because they are focussing on the details too much.

In my view, looking in from the outside, there is one singular obstacle in the way of an affordable healthcare system that ensures everyone has access to at least basic healthcare. Your corrupt political system is bought and paid for by (among others) Big Pharma. As long as they buy the policies, nothing will change. Ever. They will keep paying lawmakers to pass bills that are to their benefit. They will keep stoking public fears about Medicare for all.  They simply do not care about people's welfare one little bit. All they care about is their (exorbitant) profits.

Kick the big corporations out of politics, and watch how all of a sudden what voters want becomes centre stage.

 

[Alisamer]

 

On 2/23/2020 at 11:48 AM, AmericanRose said:

I really don't see how any sane person could look at Trump and think 'yes' or even 'eh, not too bad'. 

There are a LOT of people who just see a few minutes of (Fox) news in the evening and that is the total extent of their knowledge of politics. They don't read. They don't change channels. They don't even really watch the news, it's just on while they're changing clothes after getting home from work. They might see headlines on Facebook, or be told about them by a family member, but they don't necessarily even click through to read articles, much less wonder if the headlines are accurate. 

They just don't see the truth. They don't see what's bad. I had one recently say to me how nice it was that Trump was donating his salary from being president, who wasn't sure whether to believe me when I pointed out the literal millions he was pocketing from hauling his staff down to Florida all the time. Another similar person listening in thought it was "great" and "smart" that Trump had managed to "find a loophole" like that, to make money off the presidency. I wanted to scream at him - "that's YOUR money he's pocketing!" and also point out that his main criticism of Hillary was that she was "after the money" and "profiting from being First Lady by charging high speaking fees". 

Anybody can vote. No matter how clueless or stupid or uninformed they are. I don't know that there's any way to solve that that isn't discriminatory, but now we have someone clueless, stupid and uninformed in the White House. And nobody's going to come out and say it, but that's what some people like about him. Smart people make them feel stupid, and that makes them mad. If someone stupider than them can be president, wow what an ego boost that is!

On 2/23/2020 at 3:45 PM, Rachel333 said:

After dragging things out long after he had no chance of winning, and suggesting that super-delegates should make him the nominee even though Hillary had the majority. He has completely switched positions on what should happen in broken convention since then!

I do think that he and his campaign hurt Hillary a lot in the general by vilifying her as much as they did and taking so long to concede.

I am amazed that Bernie is even running this time. He did cause issues last time, and I do think a lot of "Bernie or Bust" people didn't vote, essentially handing the election to Trump. 

I don't like how the Democratic candidates seem to be all rabidly against each other. I get why they are, but it makes me very nervous and makes it hard for people who were strong supporters of one of them to give in and vote for another if their candidate doesn't win the nomination. 

On 2/23/2020 at 4:01 PM, Rachel333 said:

Absolutely. I'm really just annoyed at all the old egotistical men right now who think it's a good idea to run for president when they're almost 80. If they make it through 8 years (and that's a big "if," which I don't like -- I would like my candidate to live through two terms) they would be in their late 80s at the end of their presidency! 

This, this, this. We have had way too many old white men trying to run the country. They need to step back, IMO. 

I'd be very happy if Bernie had NOT run this time, but had supported whichever candidate he prefers. It's time for him to be a mentor, I think. 

On 2/23/2020 at 6:59 PM, nausicaa said:

I have friends who post anti-Trump  and climate change stuff on Facebook and they have no idea when primaries are or that there are mid-term elections. 

Lack of civics education is a big element. They don't know how to vote or what they are doing. Low voter turnout is a bigger problem for non college-educated people under 30. 

I'm college educated and over 40, and I just had to google where and when the primary voting was for me. I registered to vote in high school (they came to the school to register those of us over 18), but had literally no idea whatsoever how ANY of that worked. Was the registration forever? Where did I vote? I registered unaffiliated at the time (very wise, as a high schooler I was pretty clueless) so could I vote in primaries? When were those? What is a midterm? How do you know who is running for what, and what they stand for? Wow those are a lot of names on the ballot!

It's only been in the past 10 years that I feel like I sort of, kind of, have a minimal understanding of how it works. 

 

 

[SassyPants]

55 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

Not to get too in the weeds here, and I'm probably going to regret posting this, but those aren't socialist programs. Those are government-funded programs and an expanded safety net. 

It actually bewilders me how both parties use this term incorrectly. You don't want socialism, you want an expanded safety net. Socialism would be the government owning the means of production. So no, most European countries aren't actually socialist. (Even the oft-mentioned Denmark describes itself as having a free market economy.) Building highways isn't socialist. The government exclusively owning all of the means to actually build a highway is socialism (but still wouldn't be communism). Free college isn't socialism. Single payer isn't socialism. 

I don't know why Bernie doesn't correct this misuse of the term because it would actually make his ideas more palatable.

Another negative effect of the misuse of the word is that white progressives are a bit dismissive of immigrants (often POC) who come from actual socialist countries and warn of the dangers they lived through (because when you say "socialism" they think you mean real socialism, with gulags and bread lines.) 

In short, it's a bunch of people talking past each other and I think it's adding to the cluster fuck. 

So who is what?

I don't understand where your question relates to what I posted? 

The candidate who can actually win the whole shebang? The only reason I can see a positive for Biden over all other viable candidates is that by electing him, the numbers in the Senate are not negatively affected, which is a plus. 
 

The discussion today has been one sided. Lots people pointing out the problems, few naming the solutions. 

[Rachel333]

4 hours ago, BernRul said:

You are being disingenuous when you say he just went to a march like Mitch Mcconnell. Sanders was involved in both SNCC and CORE during his time in Chicago. He helped lead a CORE protest against housing discrimination. It's not the same at all.

No, it's not the same, Mitch McConnell actually has a long history of pro-civil rights work. (And yet he's, well, Mitch McConnell and has also done a lot to limit civil rights, and I would take Bernie over him any day when it comes that topic or any other.)

I was being a bit flippant about McConnell's record as well because the fact that Bernie went to protests 50 years ago really is all anyone offers as proof of Bernie's supposed lifetime of fighting for civil rights. If his supporters would just admit that he has a weak record on racial issues then I would feel differently, but they act like he's a civil rights hero yet are unable to cite anything from the past 50 years. (And even then he didn't even do the bare minimum of voting for people who would support civil rights. He has said that he didn't vote until he voted for himself.)

4 hours ago, BernRul said:

You might disagree about class inequality, but statistics show it's a growing problem.

I don't disagree! I never said anything of the sort, and I doubt there's anyone here who doesn't think it's a serious issue.

What I said was that I disagree with Bernie's analysis that class issues are more important than other areas of discrimination. He frequently refers to questions of race and gender as just "identity politics," and takes the myopic view that racism is primarily a result of economic insecurity. No one is saying they aren't linked, but most people who take racism seriously disagree that solving income inequality would solve racism. He has said that Trump voters weren't racist, they just had economic anxiety, but studies have shown that no, they're just really racist.

This quote from a Seth Meyers interview kind of summarizes how Bernie sees these issues:

Quote

“Yes. I mean, I think we’ve got to work in two ways,” Sanders answered. “Number one, we have got to take on Trump’s attacks against the environment, against women, against Latinos and blacks and people in the gay community, we’ve got to fight back every day on those issues. But equally important, or more important: We have got to focus on bread-and-butter issues that mean so much to ordinary Americans.”

So racism, homophobia, and sexism aren't issues that matter to ordinary Americans? His wording is telling. It's not that he doesn't care about those issues, he just sees them as secondary to economic issues.

On the other hand, while Elizabeth Warren has very similar views to Bernie, she has a different philosophy on such issues and takes them as seriously as she takes economic issues.

She also has actually done her homework on her plans and figured out how much things would cost, unlike Bernie. I'm not going to take his plans seriously when he doesn't know even how much they'll cost or how he'll get them passed. You can promise the world but it doesn't mean anything unless you can actually get it done.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Rachel333

[Mama Mia]

2 hours ago, nausicaa said:

It doesn't matter if it's disingenuous. 

It doesn't matter if it's unfair. 

All that matters is how it affects getting to 270.

I genuinely don't know how to say this so that people will understand. I worry by October I'm going to turn into a crazy woman roaming the streets of the DC area grabbing random progressive-looking people by the shoulders and just screaming "270!!!!" at them.

This is the biggest blind spot in Sanders supporters, the lack of understanding of strategy. And the continued ear in the fingers refusal to listen to anyone who tries to explain it. 

And Obama's Cuba visit was highly controversial. I don't know where you were getting your news from, but both Republicans and Blue Dog Dems criticized the visit. It would have hurt him tremendously in an election year (and is why he saved it for his second term).

But regardless, we're not talking about the virtues of normalizing relations with Cuba or China. We're talking about how it plays to voters, particularly in swing states. However much we might wish things were a certain way, we have to acknowledge the reality of how things are. And to win an election, you have to focus on strategy more than on policy. I don't know why Republicans somehow intuit this so much better than Dems do. Maybe because Dems are often more idealistic?

Sanders's rape fantasy ditty and his out of wedlock son are going to be used against him. Is that unfair and disingenuous considering Trump's history? It sure as hell is. But we can bitch all day about the unfairness, it doesn't innoculate Dems against the effects of the attack.

Pissing off Cuban-Floridians certainly hurts the down ballot in a lot of counties. I wish we could acknowledge how bad Bernie is going to be for the down ballot. 

Trump has praised several dictators. See my "life is unfair" bitching above. Trump has some magical "Teflon Don" fairy dust that allows him to say some of the dumbest shit known to mankind that would be political suicide for anyone else and it doesn't affect him. 

It's not fair. But it is what it is. So just because it's not disqualifying for him, doesn't mean it's not disqualifying for someone else.

All politicians come with certain negative stereotypes they have to work against. HRC had to work at seeming warm and not shrill and condescending. Obama had to focus on coming off as non-threatening and non-radical to mossback white Dems. Bernie needs to fight his perceived radicalism and disloyalty and play down his association with authoritarian regimes. And he really seems to not get this. 

That doesn't make these stereotypes fair or accurate. And many are still rooted in unfair bigotry. But we have to deal with their effects regardless. 

I am 100% aware that getting to 270 is all that matters. My state - or the entire West Coast certainly doesn’t matter - any Dem will get it. South Carolina or any of the Deep South doesn’t matter - Trump will win it.  It’s a dozen ish states that actually count. I think Bernie has a better ability to draw out enough voters in enough of those  states to hopefully make a difference. Any of them are going to have a tough time. Despite Trump being Trump, incumbents usually win. I think Bernie can draw out more non voters and Independents, in more of the states that count, than anyone else running. Everyone else is likely to get the usual Dem voters, maybe a handful of never- Trumpers, and that’s it. 

[nausicaa]

9 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

The candidate who can actually win the whole shebang? The only reason I can see a positive for Biden over all other viable candidates is that by electing him, the numbers in the Senate are not negatively affected, which is a plus. 
 

The discussion today has been one sided. Lots people pointing out the problems, few naming the solutions. 

I didn't say anywhere in my post that he couldn't win the whole shebang. And I didn't imply that someone else definitely could. I think this is a good example of the misinterpretation going on: pointing out strategic issues isn't dismissing the entire campaign. You take the criticism and use it to patch up the weak parts. Campaigns aren't cast in marble.  You can edit and alter them. 

 

As for the discussion being one-sided toward the problems, is the onus not moreso on the supporters to provide solutions? Which no supporters have provided thus far in this thread. 

But if people do want some suggestions (again, from a libertarian who, other than despising Trump and also being one who dies in the nuclear war Trump starts after he loses his last damn marble in the next four years, doesn't have any ideological skin in this game):

Spoiler

 

1. Stop using the term "socialism." Start using the term "controlled capitalism" and discuss moving the tax line farther to the left to expand the safety net and already existing government programs. Really emphasize his desire to protect and improve social security to appeal to elderly voters. 

2. Generally start being more open to educated criticism from other Dems. Like, when even Vox and Pod Saves America (those far right bastions...) are talking about some serious strategic weaknesses, listen to them and become BETTER because of it.  

3. You can't be a maverick and win a national election. His "old dude who doesn't give a shit" persona is appealing in its own way. But it needs to be a persona, not a reality. Not if he wants to win the election. He needs to listen to others. He needs to hire more specialists. He needs to hit a note in debates other than "mad as hell." (He's done this before, so he is capable of it. And he excels at conveying real sincerity as compared to someone like HRC. He just needs to do it more.) 

He needs to hire a specialist in appealing to urban African-Americans and other demographic specialists. He doesn't need to worry about younger voters and can skip any college visits. Basically, he needs to focus on the exact opposite groups as HRC. And once Biden and Klobuchar drop out, he needs to beg them to campaign for him (as well as Obama and Clinton). He can't be so proud and independent anymore. 

4. Sanders needs to stop tweeting about not caring about the Democratic establishment. He needs to focus on being a unifier now. (And he needs to call a meeting of his paid staff and knock some heads together in regards to their conduct on social media. Making it real fucking clear that if they keep being unprofessional and harassing others, they are kicked off the campaign. One strike policy.)

5. For the love of God shut the fuck up about the positive aspects of dictatorial regimes. He really needs to think of how things come off as a sound bite. He can study Warren for this. He also needs to distance himself from anything perceived as anti-Semitic (it doesn't matter that he's Jewish). 

6. Come out and apologize for his Soviet speech in the 1980s. Say he was wrong and he regrets it and people are human and make mistakes and he'd do things differently now. Go on record condemning the human rights violations and atrocities of the USSR. Make it clear he thinks the Bill of Rights is amazing and a cornerstone of America. 

7. Focus on Trump and his degradation of war heroes, his tariffs that hurt farmers, and Trump's proposed budget cuts to Social Security. Trump, Trump, Trump. What an incompetent idiot Trump is. Trump is hurting you. Trump is the reason coal miner jobs didn't come back. Trump lied to you. Trump supports corporate bailouts. 

 

 

[Rachel333]

2 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Sanders's rape fantasy ditty and his out of wedlock son are going to be used against him.

Already happening, as of today.

That guy did make a mistake; Bernie said that women get cancer from not having enough orgasms, not from having too many. 

[nausicaa]

13 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

Already happening, as of today.

That guy did make a mistake; Bernie said that women get cancer from not having enough orgasms, not from having too many. 

I make it a policy to avoid holding personal weirdness against a candidate. But Jesus that essay is weird. 

19 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

I am 100% aware that getting to 270 is all that matters. My state - or the entire West Coast certainly doesn’t matter - any Dem will get it. South Carolina or any of the Deep South doesn’t matter - Trump will win it.  It’s a dozen ish states that actually count. I think Bernie has a better ability to draw out enough voters in enough of those  states to hopefully make a difference. Any of them are going to have a tough time. Despite Trump being Trump, incumbents usually win. I think Bernie can draw out more non voters and Independents, in more of the states that count, than anyone else running. Everyone else is likely to get the usual Dem voters, maybe a handful of never- Trumpers, and that’s it. 

Agree with nearly all you say, but in this case, shouldn't we be even more concerned about comments he makes that rile up swing states? It scares me so much that it's only February and he's already put his foot in his mouth this badly. I worry winning the nom will only embolden him. 

I agree Bernie will probably draw out more non voters than anyone else, but I think that is more of a reflection of how weak the Democratic field is. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by nausicaa

[Rachel333]

I've had this feeling ever since 11/8/16 that I'm living in an alternate reality.  Somewhere another version of me is living under president Clinton, Trump is just a joke, and the only reason I care about the primaries is because I want to see who Hillary is going to beat.

[SassyPants]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

As a foreigner who has access to healthcare for all (far from perfect btw), I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the American system and the apparent fear of Medicare for all. I think I grasp a little of how it works for you, and what the 'fears' about Medicare for all are, but I think a lot of Americans are missing the real cause of the healthcare problems in their country because they are focussing on the details too much.

In my view, looking in from the outside, there is one singular obstacle in the way of an affordable healthcare system that ensures everyone has access to at least basic healthcare. Your corrupt political system is bought and paid for by (among others) Big Pharma. As long as they buy the policies, nothing will change. Ever. They will keep paying lawmakers to pass bills that are to their benefit. They will keep stoking public fears about Medicare for all.  They simply do not care about people's welfare one little bit. All they care about is their (exorbitant) profits.

Kick the big corporations out of politics, and watch how all of a sudden what voters want becomes centre stage.

 

Yep.  
In order to elected at the Federal level, candidates have to pimp and pander in the form of later favorable legislation, to big business, including the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. It’s a broken and rigged system for sure. 

27 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

I've had this feeling ever since 11/8/16 that I'm living in an alternate reality.  Somewhere another version of me is living under president Clinton, Trump is just a joke, and the only reason I care about the primaries is because I want to see who Hillary is going to beat.

I think this nightmare is why so many are anxiety filled this time around. I also think that this is why Sanders is currently surging. Going rogue worked for Rs...and let’s face it, Trump said some things in 2016 that I thought would eliminate any chance of him being elected, yet here we are. While I was in Iceland, I remember hearing the “grab them by the pussy, and they let you” comment, and I thought “that’s it, there’s no way that any woman would vote for that asshat” yet here we are.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is an interesting op-ed: "Dems, You Can Defeat Trump in a Landslide"

Spoiler

If this election turns out to be just between a self-proclaimed socialist and an undiagnosed sociopath, we will be in a terrible, terrible place as a country. How do we prevent that?

That’s all I am thinking about right now. My short answer is that the Democrats have to do something extraordinary — forge a national unity ticket the likes of which they have never forged before. And that’s true even if Democrats nominate someone other than Bernie Sanders.

What would this super ticket look like? Well, I suggest Sanders — and Michael Bloomberg, who seems to be his most viable long-term challenger — lay it out this way:

“I want people to know that if I am the Democratic nominee these will be my cabinet choices — my team of rivals. I want Amy Klobuchar as my vice president. Her decency, experience and moderation will be greatly appreciated across America and particularly in the Midwest. I want Mike Bloomberg (or Bernie Sanders) as my secretary of the Treasury. Our plans for addressing income inequality are actually not that far apart, and if we can blend them together it will be great for the country and reassure markets. I want Joe Biden as my secretary of state. No one in our party knows the world better or has more credibility with our allies than Joe. I will ask Elizabeth Warren to serve as health and human services secretary. No one could bring more energy and intellect to the task of expanding health care for more Americans than Senator Warren.

“I want Kamala Harris for attorney general. She has the toughness and integrity needed to clean up the corrupt mess Donald Trump has created in our Justice Department. I would like Mayor Pete as homeland security secretary; his intelligence and military background would make him a quick study in that job. I would like Tom Steyer to head a new cabinet position: secretary of national infrastructure. We’re going to rebuild America, not just build a wall on the border with Mexico. And I am asking Cory Booker, the former mayor of Newark, to become secretary of housing and urban development. Who would bring more passion to the task of revitalizing our inner cities than Cory?

“I am asking Mitt Romney to be my commerce secretary. He is the best person to promote American business and technology abroad — and it is vital that the public understands that my government will be representing all Americans, including Republicans. I would like Andrew Yang to be energy secretary, overseeing our nuclear stockpile and renewable energy innovation. He’d be awesome.

“I am asking Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to serve as our U.N. ambassador. Can you imagine how our international standing would improve with youth worldwide with her representing next-gen America? And I want Senator Michael Bennet, the former superintendent of the Denver Public Schools, to be my secretary of education. No one understands education reform better than he does. Silicon Valley Congressman Ro Khanna would be an ideal secretary of labor, balancing robots and workers to create “new collar” jobs.

“Finally, I am asking William H. McRaven, the retired Navy admiral who commanded the U.S. Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014 and oversaw the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden, to be my defense secretary. Admiral McRaven, more than any other retired military officer, has had the courage and integrity to speak out against the way President Trump has politicized our intelligence agencies.

Only last week, McRaven wrote an essay in The Washington Post decrying Trump’s firing of Joe Maguire as acting director of national intelligence — the nation’s top intelligence officer — for doing his job when he had an aide brief a bipartisan committee of Congress on Russia’s renewed efforts to tilt our election toward Trump.

“Edmund Burke,” wrote McRaven, “the Irish statesman and philosopher, once said: ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’”

Editors’ Picks

A Reporter Remembers the Miracle on Ice 40 Years Later

Lawrence Tesler, Who Made Personal Computing Easier, Dies at 74

Firefighter Chases Woman Down Street

If Bernie or Bloomberg or whoever emerges to head the Democratic ticket brings together such a team of rivals, I am confident it will defeat Trump in a landslide. But if progressives think they can win without the moderates — or the moderates without the progressives — they are crazy. And they’d be taking a huge risk with the future of the country by trying.

And I mean a huge risk. Back in May 2018, the former House speaker John Boehner declared: “There is no Republican Party. There’s a Trump party. The Republican Party is kind of taking a nap somewhere.”

It’s actually not napping anymore. It’s dead.

And I will tell you the day it died. It was just last week, when Trump sacked Maguire for advancing the truth and replaced him with a loyalist, an incompetent political hack, Richard Grenell. Grenell is the widely disliked U.S. ambassador to Germany, a post for which he is also unfit. Grenell is now purging the intelligence service of Trump critics. How are we going to get unvarnished, nonpolitical intelligence analysis when the message goes out that if your expert conclusions disagree with Trump’s wishes, you’re gone?

I don’t accept, but can vaguely understand, Republicans’ rallying around Trump on impeachment. But when Republicans, the self-proclaimed national security party — folks like Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton — don’t lift a finger to stop Trump’s politicization of our first line of defense — the national intelligence directorate set up after 9/11 — then the Republican Party is not asleep. It’s dead and buried.

And that is why a respected, nonpartisan military intelligence professional like Bill McRaven felt compelled to warn what happens when good people are silent in the face of evil. Our retired generals don’t go public like that very often. But he was practically screaming, “This is a four-alarm fire, a category 5 hurricane.” And the G.O.P. response? Silence.

Veteran political analyst E.J. Dionne, in his valuable new book, “Code Red: How Progressives and Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country,” got this exactly right: We have no responsible Republican Party anymore. It is a deformed Trump personality cult. If the country is going to be governed responsibly, that leadership can come only from Democrats and disaffected Republicans courageous enough to stand up to Trump. It is crucial, therefore, argues Dionne, that moderate and progressive Democrats find a way to build a governing coalition together.

Neither can defeat the other. Neither can win without the other. Neither can govern without the other.

If they don’t join together — if the Democrats opt for a circular firing squad — you can kiss the America you grew up in goodbye.

 

[SassyPants]

16 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

This is an interesting op-ed: "Dems, You Can Defeat Trump in a Landslide"

  Hide contents

If this election turns out to be just between a self-proclaimed socialist and an undiagnosed sociopath, we will be in a terrible, terrible place as a country. How do we prevent that?

That’s all I am thinking about right now. My short answer is that the Democrats have to do something extraordinary — forge a national unity ticket the likes of which they have never forged before. And that’s true even if Democrats nominate someone other than Bernie Sanders.

What would this super ticket look like? Well, I suggest Sanders — and Michael Bloomberg, who seems to be his most viable long-term challenger — lay it out this way:

“I want people to know that if I am the Democratic nominee these will be my cabinet choices — my team of rivals. I want Amy Klobuchar as my vice president. Her decency, experience and moderation will be greatly appreciated across America and particularly in the Midwest. I want Mike Bloomberg (or Bernie Sanders) as my secretary of the Treasury. Our plans for addressing income inequality are actually not that far apart, and if we can blend them together it will be great for the country and reassure markets. I want Joe Biden as my secretary of state. No one in our party knows the world better or has more credibility with our allies than Joe. I will ask Elizabeth Warren to serve as health and human services secretary. No one could bring more energy and intellect to the task of expanding health care for more Americans than Senator Warren.

“I want Kamala Harris for attorney general. She has the toughness and integrity needed to clean up the corrupt mess Donald Trump has created in our Justice Department. I would like Mayor Pete as homeland security secretary; his intelligence and military background would make him a quick study in that job. I would like Tom Steyer to head a new cabinet position: secretary of national infrastructure. We’re going to rebuild America, not just build a wall on the border with Mexico. And I am asking Cory Booker, the former mayor of Newark, to become secretary of housing and urban development. Who would bring more passion to the task of revitalizing our inner cities than Cory?

“I am asking Mitt Romney to be my commerce secretary. He is the best person to promote American business and technology abroad — and it is vital that the public understands that my government will be representing all Americans, including Republicans. I would like Andrew Yang to be energy secretary, overseeing our nuclear stockpile and renewable energy innovation. He’d be awesome.

“I am asking Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to serve as our U.N. ambassador. Can you imagine how our international standing would improve with youth worldwide with her representing next-gen America? And I want Senator Michael Bennet, the former superintendent of the Denver Public Schools, to be my secretary of education. No one understands education reform better than he does. Silicon Valley Congressman Ro Khanna would be an ideal secretary of labor, balancing robots and workers to create “new collar” jobs.

“Finally, I am asking William H. McRaven, the retired Navy admiral who commanded the U.S. Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014 and oversaw the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden, to be my defense secretary. Admiral McRaven, more than any other retired military officer, has had the courage and integrity to speak out against the way President Trump has politicized our intelligence agencies.

Only last week, McRaven wrote an essay in The Washington Post decrying Trump’s firing of Joe Maguire as acting director of national intelligence — the nation’s top intelligence officer — for doing his job when he had an aide brief a bipartisan committee of Congress on Russia’s renewed efforts to tilt our election toward Trump.

“Edmund Burke,” wrote McRaven, “the Irish statesman and philosopher, once said: ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’”

Editors’ Picks

A Reporter Remembers the Miracle on Ice 40 Years Later

Lawrence Tesler, Who Made Personal Computing Easier, Dies at 74

Firefighter Chases Woman Down Street

If Bernie or Bloomberg or whoever emerges to head the Democratic ticket brings together such a team of rivals, I am confident it will defeat Trump in a landslide. But if progressives think they can win without the moderates — or the moderates without the progressives — they are crazy. And they’d be taking a huge risk with the future of the country by trying.

And I mean a huge risk. Back in May 2018, the former House speaker John Boehner declared: “There is no Republican Party. There’s a Trump party. The Republican Party is kind of taking a nap somewhere.”

It’s actually not napping anymore. It’s dead.

And I will tell you the day it died. It was just last week, when Trump sacked Maguire for advancing the truth and replaced him with a loyalist, an incompetent political hack, Richard Grenell. Grenell is the widely disliked U.S. ambassador to Germany, a post for which he is also unfit. Grenell is now purging the intelligence service of Trump critics. How are we going to get unvarnished, nonpolitical intelligence analysis when the message goes out that if your expert conclusions disagree with Trump’s wishes, you’re gone?

I don’t accept, but can vaguely understand, Republicans’ rallying around Trump on impeachment. But when Republicans, the self-proclaimed national security party — folks like Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton — don’t lift a finger to stop Trump’s politicization of our first line of defense — the national intelligence directorate set up after 9/11 — then the Republican Party is not asleep. It’s dead and buried.

And that is why a respected, nonpartisan military intelligence professional like Bill McRaven felt compelled to warn what happens when good people are silent in the face of evil. Our retired generals don’t go public like that very often. But he was practically screaming, “This is a four-alarm fire, a category 5 hurricane.” And the G.O.P. response? Silence.

Veteran political analyst E.J. Dionne, in his valuable new book, “Code Red: How Progressives and Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country,” got this exactly right: We have no responsible Republican Party anymore. It is a deformed Trump personality cult. If the country is going to be governed responsibly, that leadership can come only from Democrats and disaffected Republicans courageous enough to stand up to Trump. It is crucial, therefore, argues Dionne, that moderate and progressive Democrats find a way to build a governing coalition together.

Neither can defeat the other. Neither can win without the other. Neither can govern without the other.

If they don’t join together — if the Democrats opt for a circular firing squad — you can kiss the America you grew up in goodbye.

Beautifully and succinctly put.  Now the real question, would folks down ballot agree? Would Amy agree to being Sanders’s  VP or Warren Bloomberg’s? Would the candidates put the greater good before their own  personal aspirations? 
The struggles that the Dems are going through now, the Rs went through in 2016.

 

[Mama Mia]

16 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

This is an interesting op-ed: "Dems, You Can Defeat Trump in a Landslide"

  Hide contents

If this election turns out to be just between a self-proclaimed socialist and an undiagnosed sociopath, we will be in a terrible, terrible place as a country. How do we prevent that?

That’s all I am thinking about right now. My short answer is that the Democrats have to do something extraordinary — forge a national unity ticket the likes of which they have never forged before. And that’s true even if Democrats nominate someone other than Bernie Sanders.

What would this super ticket look like? Well, I suggest Sanders — and Michael Bloomberg, who seems to be his most viable long-term challenger — lay it out this way:

“I want people to know that if I am the Democratic nominee these will be my cabinet choices — my team of rivals. I want Amy Klobuchar as my vice president. Her decency, experience and moderation will be greatly appreciated across America and particularly in the Midwest. I want Mike Bloomberg (or Bernie Sanders) as my secretary of the Treasury. Our plans for addressing income inequality are actually not that far apart, and if we can blend them together it will be great for the country and reassure markets. I want Joe Biden as my secretary of state. No one in our party knows the world better or has more credibility with our allies than Joe. I will ask Elizabeth Warren to serve as health and human services secretary. No one could bring more energy and intellect to the task of expanding health care for more Americans than Senator Warren.

“I want Kamala Harris for attorney general. She has the toughness and integrity needed to clean up the corrupt mess Donald Trump has created in our Justice Department. I would like Mayor Pete as homeland security secretary; his intelligence and military background would make him a quick study in that job. I would like Tom Steyer to head a new cabinet position: secretary of national infrastructure. We’re going to rebuild America, not just build a wall on the border with Mexico. And I am asking Cory Booker, the former mayor of Newark, to become secretary of housing and urban development. Who would bring more passion to the task of revitalizing our inner cities than Cory?

“I am asking Mitt Romney to be my commerce secretary. He is the best person to promote American business and technology abroad — and it is vital that the public understands that my government will be representing all Americans, including Republicans. I would like Andrew Yang to be energy secretary, overseeing our nuclear stockpile and renewable energy innovation. He’d be awesome.

“I am asking Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to serve as our U.N. ambassador. Can you imagine how our international standing would improve with youth worldwide with her representing next-gen America? And I want Senator Michael Bennet, the former superintendent of the Denver Public Schools, to be my secretary of education. No one understands education reform better than he does. Silicon Valley Congressman Ro Khanna would be an ideal secretary of labor, balancing robots and workers to create “new collar” jobs.

“Finally, I am asking William H. McRaven, the retired Navy admiral who commanded the U.S. Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014 and oversaw the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden, to be my defense secretary. Admiral McRaven, more than any other retired military officer, has had the courage and integrity to speak out against the way President Trump has politicized our intelligence agencies.

Only last week, McRaven wrote an essay in The Washington Post decrying Trump’s firing of Joe Maguire as acting director of national intelligence — the nation’s top intelligence officer — for doing his job when he had an aide brief a bipartisan committee of Congress on Russia’s renewed efforts to tilt our election toward Trump.

“Edmund Burke,” wrote McRaven, “the Irish statesman and philosopher, once said: ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’”

Editors’ Picks

A Reporter Remembers the Miracle on Ice 40 Years Later

Lawrence Tesler, Who Made Personal Computing Easier, Dies at 74

Firefighter Chases Woman Down Street

If Bernie or Bloomberg or whoever emerges to head the Democratic ticket brings together such a team of rivals, I am confident it will defeat Trump in a landslide. But if progressives think they can win without the moderates — or the moderates without the progressives — they are crazy. And they’d be taking a huge risk with the future of the country by trying.

And I mean a huge risk. Back in May 2018, the former House speaker John Boehner declared: “There is no Republican Party. There’s a Trump party. The Republican Party is kind of taking a nap somewhere.”

It’s actually not napping anymore. It’s dead.

And I will tell you the day it died. It was just last week, when Trump sacked Maguire for advancing the truth and replaced him with a loyalist, an incompetent political hack, Richard Grenell. Grenell is the widely disliked U.S. ambassador to Germany, a post for which he is also unfit. Grenell is now purging the intelligence service of Trump critics. How are we going to get unvarnished, nonpolitical intelligence analysis when the message goes out that if your expert conclusions disagree with Trump’s wishes, you’re gone?

I don’t accept, but can vaguely understand, Republicans’ rallying around Trump on impeachment. But when Republicans, the self-proclaimed national security party — folks like Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton — don’t lift a finger to stop Trump’s politicization of our first line of defense — the national intelligence directorate set up after 9/11 — then the Republican Party is not asleep. It’s dead and buried.

And that is why a respected, nonpartisan military intelligence professional like Bill McRaven felt compelled to warn what happens when good people are silent in the face of evil. Our retired generals don’t go public like that very often. But he was practically screaming, “This is a four-alarm fire, a category 5 hurricane.” And the G.O.P. response? Silence.

Veteran political analyst E.J. Dionne, in his valuable new book, “Code Red: How Progressives and Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country,” got this exactly right: We have no responsible Republican Party anymore. It is a deformed Trump personality cult. If the country is going to be governed responsibly, that leadership can come only from Democrats and disaffected Republicans courageous enough to stand up to Trump. It is crucial, therefore, argues Dionne, that moderate and progressive Democrats find a way to build a governing coalition together.

Neither can defeat the other. Neither can win without the other. Neither can govern without the other.

If they don’t join together — if the Democrats opt for a circular firing squad — you can kiss the America you grew up in goodbye.

 

Interesting. I’d take issue with a few of those - either eliminating or shifting around- Bloomberg in particular seems incredibly toxic - but I’ve long thought that a Bernie / Klobuchar ticket would work.  Looking through the voting records, they aren’t as in alignment as some others, but generally vote the same about 85% of the time. And have worked on quite a few bills together. 
Their styles are also similar, but would appeal to different groups. 

[Marmion]

7 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

And also...

Quote

Democratic socialism describes a socialist economy where production and wealth are collectively owned, but the country has a democratic system of government.

Has he disavowed the first part of how he self defines.  The government coming for the factors of production is scary af and people get nervous of what could be coming down the road.  They do that there will be a revolt and I'll be on board with it.  If he's not in favor of the gov taking factors of production than why is he using that term to describe himself?

From what I saw in the Nevada Caucus debate , which you can watch here , if you have the time and inclination 

, it was brought out that Bernie Sanders wants to turn all corporations into worker self -managed cooperatives . If this is true , and Sen. Sanders did not correct the moderator's assertion , then I think that his proposal , in contrast to the Nordic model , is actually more along the lines of the Yugoslav model , under Tito .  { https://jacobinmag.com/2017/07/yugoslav-socialism-tito-self-management-serbia-balkans , 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia }  Sen. Warren seems to want to establish a social market economy , with co-determination .  { https://politicaltheology.com/senator-elizabeth-warrens-co-determination-proposal-and-catholic-social-teaching/  , https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/elizabeth-warrens-theory-of-capitalism/568573/ , 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy , 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination#United_States }  And for what it's worth , I support following the example of Romagna Italy , and implementing something along the lines of the Marcora Law . { https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2016/07/05/the-italian-place-where-co-ops-drive-the-economy-and-most-people-are-members/ , 

https://wikipreneurship.eu/index.php/Marcora_Law }  I suppose that this is what makes me a liberal socialist . Bernie Sanders on the other hand , seems to have had a history of supporting Communism , going far back .  https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-or-out-and-out-stalinistist/ 

[AmericanRose]

6 hours ago, Alisamer said:

 

There are a LOT of people who just see a few minutes of (Fox) news in the evening and that is the total extent of their knowledge of politics. They don't read. They don't change channels. They don't even really watch the news, it's just on while they're changing clothes after getting home from work. They might see headlines on Facebook, or be told about them by a family member, but they don't necessarily even click through to read articles, much less wonder if the headlines are accurate. 

They just don't see the truth. They don't see what's bad. I had one recently say to me how nice it was that Trump was donating his salary from being president, who wasn't sure whether to believe me when I pointed out the literal millions he was pocketing from hauling his staff down to Florida all the time. Another similar person listening in thought it was "great" and "smart" that Trump had managed to "find a loophole" like that, to make money off the presidency. I wanted to scream at him - "that's YOUR money he's pocketing!" and also point out that his main criticism of Hillary was that she was "after the money" and "profiting from being First Lady by charging high speaking fees". 

That's why I said 'sane person'.  My mom is a major Q anon supporter who has Fox News on 24/7, watches OANN (and who knows what else) every night, and thus thinks she's "well-informed". And her "information" has affected at least 1 other voter, possibly 2 or 3.

Edited February 26, 2020 by AmericanRose

[GreyhoundFan]

Working with almost exclusively men, I truly get how Amy must have been feeling:

 

[Dandruff]

I kept having to hit mute.  Why didn't those moderators keep better control?  How much additional clarity do we now have on the candidates' experience and goals?  But, but, but, listen, look, now listen, now look, I was called out by name, the fact of the matter, it's my turn...just stfu.

Ruckus aside, I thought Biden presented pretty well and I was also impressed with Buttigieg and Klobuchar, in that order.  I thought Bloomberg got somewhat lost in the noise - too little, too late - though I think he could have been a contender if he had been better prepared last time.  Warren seemed to be trying, but failing to achieve, another "knockdown" leaving (IMO) not much more than shrillness.  My opinion of Sanders hasn't changed and isn't going to - I'll leave it at that.  This "debate" gave me more of a sense than ever that the Democratic Party may be weaving its way to another loss, but I very much hope I'm wrong.  There are some good candidates but I believe the best ones are going to split votes among them, leaving the fringe.

At the moment and (as usual) subject to change I'm planning to vote for Biden (my initial pick) and would like Buttigieg or Klobuchar as vice.

[Maggie Mae]

On 2/25/2020 at 10:06 AM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Thanks for explaining.  How does this work on a practical level?  I assume one would need to work there for a certain amount of time to be vested?  When one leaves for another job, or retire, do they cash out their shares?

The shares aren't allowed to be sold or transferred - they are held in trust for the workforce. They pay out annual dividends. 

Quote

I've sat in board meetings where people have talked for hours about the best way to amortize the cost of machinery, not to mention the pros and cons of acquisitions which are purchased with the owner's money.  Boards for SMB (20-100 million range) can be quite small.  How does his plan address giving people the baseline knowledge to vote on things which may be well outside their skillset?

The "Share the Corporate Wealth" plan is only for corporations with at least $100 million in annual revenue, corporations with at least $100 million in balance sheet total, and all publicly traded companies.

 

Last afternoon's debate was weird. I dropped Pete down my list and moved Biden up. Which is crazy to me, a few weeks ago I was putting Biden next to Bloomberg. I still go back and forth between Bernie and Warren for my number one pick. Not that it matters, my ballot won't be counted until April, and even then my state still only has 15 delegates (and two or three that aren't bound to any sort of vote) 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Maggie Mae

[GreyhoundFan]

This is exactly why Warren is still my first choice. If Ann Coulter hates her, Liz is doing it right:

 

[SassyPants]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

This is exactly why Warren is still my first choice. If Ann Coulter hates her, Liz is doing it right:

 

It seems in this country the smartest person, with the best and most solid plans , is rarely the person chosen to be the leader. It’s as if people are intimidated by or afraid of those kind of people. I think that counts even more if the candidate is a woman.

[Mama Mia]

Spoiler

To lighten the discussion. This summary of Elizabeth Warren at the Nevada debate is hilarious 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Mama Mia
Tried to put this under a spoiler - hilarious, but language is NSFW

[nausicaa]

36 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

  Hide contents

To lighten the discussion. This summary of Elizabeth Warren at the Nevada debate is hilarious 

 

 

I watched this like twenty times yesterday and  laughed every.single.time.

"You a child. Stay in a child's place."?

[formergothardite]

7 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

  Hide contents

To lighten the discussion. This summary of Elizabeth Warren at the Nevada debate is hilarious 

 

 

This made me laugh so hard. 

I voted early this week and when I was walking out I overheard this person saying "I voted for that guy who looks like he is 12." Pretty sure that is Pete. 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]