Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 37606 times)

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #550 on: July 12, 2019, 10:06:02 PM »
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.


lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #551 on: July 12, 2019, 10:52:27 PM »
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.
I find her interesting in that she at least talks in terms of a Peter Zeihan-esque indifference to classical us foreign policy objectives. If she were to walk the walk, it would provide useful information. I am in favor of either ultra-hardliners like John Bolton running things (let's face it) or the opposite camp doing so. This in-between stuff is clouding the signal of what the world really needs from the US in terms of engagement (I suspect the world will turn to shit if the US backs down from its hegemonic position but am prepared to be proved wrong).

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4732
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #552 on: July 13, 2019, 06:29:14 AM »

Saw on MTP this morning that Biden is still doing the best by far in polls showing candidates going head to head against Trump.  The other top candidates are within the margin of error, either tied or slightly leading Trump.

Harris got all over Biden about his busing views, and ironically, she has since admitted she has the same viewpoint on it.
Where have you seen that?

I saw that multiple places, can't remember where exactly, so I searched just now to find some references:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-says-kamala-harris-hatched-political-ploy-to-smear-joe-biden-on-race

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-laughs-at-kamala-harris-for-her-shift-on-busing-our-positions-arent-any-different

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-crushed-joe-biden-on-busing-at-the-debate-heres-why-shes-walking-it-back?

Sorry, but I can't accept Fox News as a legitimate source.

That's funny, that's how I feel about msNBC.  However, I provided 3 different sources, so what are you complaining about?  And come to think of it, I didn't even post those for you, so I don't give a rat's a$$ what you consider legitimate.
Since you posted for me, I should say, I agree that Fox News is not a reputable source and I lean that way with daily beast. The only other link you posted (cbs) did not actually support your statement.  It had someone else saying Harris was walking back but no quotes from Harris, which you would expect if they had any.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #553 on: July 13, 2019, 08:47:37 AM »

Saw on MTP this morning that Biden is still doing the best by far in polls showing candidates going head to head against Trump.  The other top candidates are within the margin of error, either tied or slightly leading Trump.

Harris got all over Biden about his busing views, and ironically, she has since admitted she has the same viewpoint on it.
Where have you seen that?

I saw that multiple places, can't remember where exactly, so I searched just now to find some references:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-says-kamala-harris-hatched-political-ploy-to-smear-joe-biden-on-race

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-laughs-at-kamala-harris-for-her-shift-on-busing-our-positions-arent-any-different

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-crushed-joe-biden-on-busing-at-the-debate-heres-why-shes-walking-it-back?

Sorry, but I can't accept Fox News as a legitimate source.

That's funny, that's how I feel about msNBC.  However, I provided 3 different sources, so what are you complaining about?  And come to think of it, I didn't even post those for you, so I don't give a rat's a$$ what you consider legitimate.
Since you posted for me, I should say, I agree that Fox News is not a reputable source and I lean that way with daily beast. The only other link you posted (cbs) did not actually support your statement.  It had someone else saying Harris was walking back but no quotes from Harris, which you would expect if they had any.

Take it or leave it.  Or actually put in a little of your own effort and do some of your own searches.  It's a fact.  FOX News is certainly reputable, and I provided other sources as well, which are all are correct.  Even Biden was laughing about it.  I know I originally saw it elsewhere, but I'm not going to keep providing references to someone who will just make excuses about references provided.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2019, 08:50:16 AM by FIREstache »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 199
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #554 on: July 17, 2019, 10:39:17 AM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #555 on: July 17, 2019, 10:52:33 AM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 199
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #556 on: July 17, 2019, 11:01:47 AM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.

nick663

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
  • Location: midwest
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #557 on: July 17, 2019, 11:18:03 AM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2019, 11:20:16 AM by nick663 »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #558 on: July 17, 2019, 11:51:43 AM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #559 on: July 17, 2019, 12:02:37 PM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

What? Like I get being a bit nervous at certain left leaning policies, but student debt forgiveness is the hard one to swallow?

Not only is it being proposed to be paid by a trading fee, but multiple academic studies show that it would have almost no effect on debt, interest rates, and would be a mild economic multiplier. Plus the only thing that is keep the US economy afloat right now is advanced education and its related labor. So I don't see how you don't do this. I also paid off all my loans. I don't care. No one needs to be 300k in debt. You can say it was consenting adults. Yeah but it's also protected from bankruptcy, and backed by nothing.

Not only that, but free college would create a reasonable limit to the price of college instead of the runaway tuition inflation we've been seeing.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 199
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #560 on: July 17, 2019, 12:03:56 PM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.

And Trump was never going to get anything accomplished because he was politically naïve....except he has. And each side, Republicans and Democrats haven't increased executive power to allow the president to do more and more. And Republicans won't obstruct judge nominations "causing" Democrats to escalate and use the nuclear option "causing" Republicans to use the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees in an ever increasing battle of escalation. So no, I'm not going to just assume that things are going to go as usual and everything will moderate out. To be frank, the arguments you're making are literally identical on the other side to the Trump arguments before he go elected - oh, don't worry, he's just pushing right, he'll come back to the center. Are we in a post-fact world that you so deride Trump for? These guys are the ones saying this is what they want or what they'll do. I'll take people at their word for what they want to do and vote on them with that as my backdrop.

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #561 on: July 17, 2019, 12:07:32 PM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

I'm on record here as being pretty unhappy with the leftward lurch of the Democratic party. Partially because I'm not on board with some of the specifics proposals, partially because doubling down on the identity politics stuff makes for incredible brittle coalitions and is excellent troll food, but mainly because I don't think it's going to help them defeat Trump. Progressives see activating the left as the path to victory, not courting swing voters in the swing states. I think that is playing with fire. I see Trump and Trumpism as an existential threat to this county that must be rebuked. Trump is vulnerable, but I'm not at all convinced there are enough far left votes to be picked up in the swing states that matter to make up for the center right swing voters they're leaving behind. 

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #562 on: July 17, 2019, 12:24:19 PM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

I'm on record here as being pretty unhappy with the leftward lurch of the Democratic party. Partially because I'm not on board with some of the specifics proposals, partially because doubling down on the identity politics stuff makes for incredible brittle coalitions and is excellent troll food, but mainly because I don't think it's going to help them defeat Trump. Progressives see activating the left as the path to victory, not courting swing voters in the swing states. I think that is playing with fire. I see Trump and Trumpism as an existential threat to this county that must be rebuked. Trump is vulnerable, but I'm not at all convinced there are enough far left votes to be picked up in the swing states that matter to make up for the center right swing voters they're leaving behind.

Agree. 

It's predictable to have a big leftward swing in response to someone like Trump (similar to the Tea Party becoming a massive PITA for governing and for the GOP party leadership), but it makes center-leftist voters like myself very annoyed.  The only area I want to see a massive leftward swing is on climate change policy, and said leftward swing would have been considered mainstream center-left policy back in the 90s and 00s.

I've never voted for Republican candidate for president in my life, and I'm sure not going to start now that the party has gone bug-fucking insane and is led by someone who appears actively mentally ill.  I'm not 'scared' of the far-left policies, and none of them are likely to pass any time in the near future anyway, so that worry would be immaterial.  The GOP is going to hold the Senate the vast majority of the time into the foreseeable future. Not even slightly left-leaning policies are going to pass very often, for at least another decade.

So I'll vote for whichever candidate the Dems put up. And I happen to greatly admire Warren (from days long pre-dating her political career), even though I don't support many of her current policy proposals.  But the Dems should consider how many people there are out there like me, who have been consistently voting Dem for decades, but find the party itself frequently laughably short-sighted in their policy positioning and talking points.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4424
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #563 on: July 17, 2019, 12:25:33 PM »
Do we actually know that the Democratic party has lurched leftwards?  Some of the candidates are obviously further left, but there is no guarantee any of them will become the nominee and no guarantee that if any of them become the nominee they will stick with leftist policies either before or after election.

It's obviously fair to say that there is concern about the party going left, but I don't think you can say yet that it has.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3248
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #564 on: July 17, 2019, 12:36:31 PM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

I'm on record here as being pretty unhappy with the leftward lurch of the Democratic party. Partially because I'm not on board with some of the specifics proposals, partially because doubling down on the identity politics stuff makes for incredible brittle coalitions and is excellent troll food, but mainly because I don't think it's going to help them defeat Trump. Progressives see activating the left as the path to victory, not courting swing voters in the swing states. I think that is playing with fire. I see Trump and Trumpism as an existential threat to this county that must be rebuked. Trump is vulnerable, but I'm not at all convinced there are enough far left votes to be picked up in the swing states that matter to make up for the center right swing voters they're leaving behind.

Agree. 

It's predictable to have a big leftward swing in response to someone like Trump (similar to the Tea Party becoming a massive PITA for governing and for the GOP party leadership), but it makes center-leftist voters like myself very annoyed.  The only area I want to see a massive leftward swing is on climate change policy, and said leftward swing would have been considered mainstream center-left policy back in the 90s and 00s.

I've never voted for Republican candidate for president in my life, and I'm sure not going to start now that the party has gone bug-fucking insane and is led by someone who appears actively mentally ill.  I'm not 'scared' of the far-left policies, and none of them are likely to pass any time in the near future anyway, so that worry would be immaterial.  The GOP is going to hold the Senate the vast majority of the time into the foreseeable future. Not even slightly left-leaning policies are going to pass very often, for at least another decade.

So I'll vote for whichever candidate the Dems put up. And I happen to greatly admire Warren (from days long pre-dating her political career), even though I don't support many of her current policy proposals.  But the Dems should consider how many people there are out there like me, who have been consistently voting Dem for decades, but find the party itself frequently laughably short-sighted in their policy positioning and talking points.

Yes I see a lot in democratic party platforms, of basically promising too much. Doing the number crunching they don't have the senate numbers to pass anything remotely liberal. What are my top 3? climate change, universal health coverage, and Roe versus Wade (I have two daughters and don't need them to grow up in some kind of sharia law environment where they do not have agency over their own bodies).

I do like that many of the Democratic candidates are stating that climate change is a real problem, both environmentally, economically, and human quality of life, that they will have a national policy addressing climate change and we will re-sign the Paris Agreement (along with every other civilized country). I hope that all the Republican candidates state the same. It should be a minimum standard. So I do know with reasonable certainty anyone who is elected on the Democratic side will return us to sanity in this respect, while Republican side will continue to mirror what the Tobacco companies did for a couple decades which is lie and dissemble to constituents and continue to count the money from lobbyists and their donors.     
« Last Edit: July 17, 2019, 12:38:53 PM by partgypsy »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #565 on: July 17, 2019, 12:45:26 PM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.

And Trump was never going to get anything accomplished because he was politically naïve....except he has. And each side, Republicans and Democrats haven't increased executive power to allow the president to do more and more. And Republicans won't obstruct judge nominations "causing" Democrats to escalate and use the nuclear option "causing" Republicans to use the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees in an ever increasing battle of escalation. So no, I'm not going to just assume that things are going to go as usual and everything will moderate out. To be frank, the arguments you're making are literally identical on the other side to the Trump arguments before he go elected - oh, don't worry, he's just pushing right, he'll come back to the center. Are we in a post-fact world that you so deride Trump for? These guys are the ones saying this is what they want or what they'll do. I'll take people at their word for what they want to do and vote on them with that as my backdrop.

No. That is not the argument I am making at all. I'm not saying that a Warren or a Sanders would come back to the center. I'm saying they do not create legislation. And I very much doubt that they would rule by executive order alone as Trump has done. Because they are not Trump. And their party is not the Republican party. I do not see any scenario where a Warren or a Sanders says, "I am signing an executive order to eliminate all student loan debt for (insert ridiculously transparent reach of an argument here.)"

Yes, they are saying that's what they want to do. But they still have some respect for our process, and our system. Unlike the current occupant.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #566 on: July 17, 2019, 01:51:47 PM »
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.


nick663

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
  • Location: midwest
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #567 on: July 17, 2019, 02:03:24 PM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

What? Like I get being a bit nervous at certain left leaning policies, but student debt forgiveness is the hard one to swallow?

Not only is it being proposed to be paid by a trading fee, but multiple academic studies show that it would have almost no effect on debt, interest rates, and would be a mild economic multiplier. Plus the only thing that is keep the US economy afloat right now is advanced education and its related labor. So I don't see how you don't do this. I also paid off all my loans. I don't care. No one needs to be 300k in debt. You can say it was consenting adults. Yeah but it's also protected from bankruptcy, and backed by nothing.

Not only that, but free college would create a reasonable limit to the price of college instead of the runaway tuition inflation we've been seeing.
Care to link some of those studies?  I wasn't aware that anyone had analyzed Warren's student loan plan and would be more than interested to learn.

Tuition free college is a separate discussion and something I'm much more ok with.  I was speaking only about student loan foregiveness in my post.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3248
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #568 on: July 17, 2019, 02:09:29 PM »
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.

Nah there is no one the Democratic party can nominate that will make Trump look reasonable.

What do you think of Klobach? I know she is not in the lead but she strikes me as a pragmatist. I also like Yang as well. Honestly while the ubi sounds crazy, it is the same price or less than our patchwork of social networks, with much less beuracratic headaches and decisions.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #569 on: July 17, 2019, 02:18:06 PM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

What? Like I get being a bit nervous at certain left leaning policies, but student debt forgiveness is the hard one to swallow?

Not only is it being proposed to be paid by a trading fee, but multiple academic studies show that it would have almost no effect on debt, interest rates, and would be a mild economic multiplier. Plus the only thing that is keep the US economy afloat right now is advanced education and its related labor. So I don't see how you don't do this. I also paid off all my loans. I don't care. No one needs to be 300k in debt. You can say it was consenting adults. Yeah but it's also protected from bankruptcy, and backed by nothing.

Not only that, but free college would create a reasonable limit to the price of college instead of the runaway tuition inflation we've been seeing.
Care to link some of those studies?  I wasn't aware that anyone had analyzed Warren's student loan plan and would be more than interested to learn.

Tuition free college is a separate discussion and something I'm much more ok with.  I was speaking only about student loan foregiveness in my post.

http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/the-macroeconomic-effects-of-student-debt-cancellation

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #570 on: July 17, 2019, 02:25:26 PM »
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.

Nah there is no one the Democratic party can nominate that will make Trump look reasonable.

What do you think of Klobach? I know she is not in the lead but she strikes me as a pragmatist. I also like Yang as well. Honestly while the ubi sounds crazy, it is the same price or less than our patchwork of social networks, with much less beuracratic headaches and decisions.

What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala. These people will make it sound as if they're planning on voting for them and then 3 weeks before the election will come up with some rationalization as to why they're going to vote for Trump or throw away their vote on McAffee or whoever the libertarian is *shudders at thought of Austin Petersen*

Nope, all these people who think they know that the only way to PA or WI is by running some neoliberal is complete hogwash to me. There are enough people who are willing to vote Democrat to win a majority in all federal elections. It only takes getting the vote out. So no, someone boring like Biden isn't going to do it. Kamala is a better choice for the neoliberals. But Bernie is exactly the person who attracts the rural white vote.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 199
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #571 on: July 17, 2019, 02:56:30 PM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.

And Trump was never going to get anything accomplished because he was politically naïve....except he has. And each side, Republicans and Democrats haven't increased executive power to allow the president to do more and more. And Republicans won't obstruct judge nominations "causing" Democrats to escalate and use the nuclear option "causing" Republicans to use the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees in an ever increasing battle of escalation. So no, I'm not going to just assume that things are going to go as usual and everything will moderate out. To be frank, the arguments you're making are literally identical on the other side to the Trump arguments before he go elected - oh, don't worry, he's just pushing right, he'll come back to the center. Are we in a post-fact world that you so deride Trump for? These guys are the ones saying this is what they want or what they'll do. I'll take people at their word for what they want to do and vote on them with that as my backdrop.

No. That is not the argument I am making at all. I'm not saying that a Warren or a Sanders would come back to the center. I'm saying they do not create legislation. And I very much doubt that they would rule by executive order alone as Trump has done. Because they are not Trump. And their party is not the Republican party. I do not see any scenario where a Warren or a Sanders says, "I am signing an executive order to eliminate all student loan debt for (insert ridiculously transparent reach of an argument here.)"

Yes, they are saying that's what they want to do. But they still have some respect for our process, and our system. Unlike the current occupant.

I guess the Democrat candidates are saying we want to do this when Trump said we will do this more often, so there's that. Otherwise, I don't know how you think your argument is any different. Again, people said, don't worry, let's elect Trump. He'll pull back to the center. He'll be regulated in by congress. He won't be able to accomplish any of these radical things he's saying. How is what you're saying any different - other than you saying that they won't do what Trump did? If that's the only distinction, it doesn't hold enough water with me. Again, Democrat presidents have been getting more free with doing the "unthinkable" breaking with tradition, taking more executive power recently. Shoot, Obama's drone attacks killing citizens overseas without a trial is right up there with most of what Trump's done, in my book (granted that's one thing versus a bunch of Trump things).

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 199
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #572 on: July 17, 2019, 03:01:49 PM »
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.

Nah there is no one the Democratic party can nominate that will make Trump look reasonable.

What do you think of Klobach? I know she is not in the lead but she strikes me as a pragmatist. I also like Yang as well. Honestly while the ubi sounds crazy, it is the same price or less than our patchwork of social networks, with much less beuracratic headaches and decisions.

What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala. These people will make it sound as if they're planning on voting for them and then 3 weeks before the election will come up with some rationalization as to why they're going to vote for Trump or throw away their vote on McAffee or whoever the libertarian is *shudders at thought of Austin Petersen*

Nope, all these people who think they know that the only way to PA or WI is by running some neoliberal is complete hogwash to me. There are enough people who are willing to vote Democrat to win a majority in all federal elections. It only takes getting the vote out. So no, someone boring like Biden isn't going to do it. Kamala is a better choice for the neoliberals. But Bernie is exactly the person who attracts the rural white vote.

That's a jerky thing to say. You don't know what I'm going to do. I did not vote for Trump last time. I'm explaining legitimate concerns I have with far left candidates. I'll generalize now to join in with your generalizations, I guess - liberals in this thread seem to act like I should just ignore what people are actually saying and go by what they assume will happen to the candidate's beliefs when they become president. Well listen, it's a lot easier to say that to someone else when you actually want their full proposals but will settle for compromised proposals than when you are on the other side of things. To vote for a Democrat, even a moderate one, would be voting against issues I am very seriously vested in to get Trump out. I'm saying it's a lot easier for me to do that when people aren't going even further left.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #573 on: July 17, 2019, 03:10:04 PM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.

And Trump was never going to get anything accomplished because he was politically naïve....except he has. And each side, Republicans and Democrats haven't increased executive power to allow the president to do more and more. And Republicans won't obstruct judge nominations "causing" Democrats to escalate and use the nuclear option "causing" Republicans to use the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees in an ever increasing battle of escalation. So no, I'm not going to just assume that things are going to go as usual and everything will moderate out. To be frank, the arguments you're making are literally identical on the other side to the Trump arguments before he go elected - oh, don't worry, he's just pushing right, he'll come back to the center. Are we in a post-fact world that you so deride Trump for? These guys are the ones saying this is what they want or what they'll do. I'll take people at their word for what they want to do and vote on them with that as my backdrop.

No. That is not the argument I am making at all. I'm not saying that a Warren or a Sanders would come back to the center. I'm saying they do not create legislation. And I very much doubt that they would rule by executive order alone as Trump has done. Because they are not Trump. And their party is not the Republican party. I do not see any scenario where a Warren or a Sanders says, "I am signing an executive order to eliminate all student loan debt for (insert ridiculously transparent reach of an argument here.)"

Yes, they are saying that's what they want to do. But they still have some respect for our process, and our system. Unlike the current occupant.

I guess the Democrat candidates are saying we want to do this when Trump said we will do this more often, so there's that. Otherwise, I don't know how you think your argument is any different. Again, people said, don't worry, let's elect Trump. He'll pull back to the center.

1) To repeat, I am not saying that a Bernie or a Warren will pull back to the center. I do not think they would.

He'll be regulated in by congress. He won't be able to accomplish any of these radical things he's saying. How is what you're saying any different - other than you saying that they won't do what Trump did?

2) To repeat, Trump is enabled by a GOP of people who don't dare stand up to him -- but more importantly, he does pretty much everything by executive order. I do not think there is any reason any of the Democratic candidates would do that. Because Trump is in a class by himself in this regard. There is almost no reason to believe any other candidate of either party would do it. I also do not believe the Democrats would allow it even if they were in full control. Which they will not be. (Though I grant you that going forward, I'm pretty sure the next GOP president will have quite an incentive to do the same thing as Trump, because the GOP will likely allow it from a president in their own party.)

If that's the only distinction, it doesn't hold enough water with me. Again, Democrat presidents have been getting more free with doing the "unthinkable" breaking with tradition, taking more executive power recently. Shoot, Obama's drone attacks killing citizens overseas without a trial is right up there with most of what Trump's done, in my book (granted that's one thing versus a bunch of Trump things).

I would like for you to please show me how the Democrat presidents have been "getting more free with" taking more executive power recently. In fact, the trend seems to show rather less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
« Last Edit: July 17, 2019, 03:11:58 PM by Kris »

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #574 on: July 17, 2019, 03:11:19 PM »
Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.

Is that the same never as the never will ACA be passed and never will Trump be elected as president?

I do not think this word means what you think it means.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #575 on: July 17, 2019, 03:12:57 PM »
Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.

Is that the same never as the never will ACA be passed and never will Trump be elected as president?

I do not think this word means what you think it means.

I never said the ACA will never be passed, and I never said Trump will never be elected as president.

Why are you bringing those up as if I did?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #576 on: July 17, 2019, 03:23:15 PM »
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.

Nah there is no one the Democratic party can nominate that will make Trump look reasonable.

What do you think of Klobach? I know she is not in the lead but she strikes me as a pragmatist. I also like Yang as well. Honestly while the ubi sounds crazy, it is the same price or less than our patchwork of social networks, with much less beuracratic headaches and decisions.

What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala. These people will make it sound as if they're planning on voting for them and then 3 weeks before the election will come up with some rationalization as to why they're going to vote for Trump or throw away their vote on McAffee or whoever the libertarian is *shudders at thought of Austin Petersen*

Nope, all these people who think they know that the only way to PA or WI is by running some neoliberal is complete hogwash to me. There are enough people who are willing to vote Democrat to win a majority in all federal elections. It only takes getting the vote out. So no, someone boring like Biden isn't going to do it. Kamala is a better choice for the neoliberals. But Bernie is exactly the person who attracts the rural white vote.

That's a jerky thing to say. You don't know what I'm going to do. I did not vote for Trump last time. I'm explaining legitimate concerns I have with far left candidates. I'll generalize now to join in with your generalizations, I guess - liberals in this thread seem to act like I should just ignore what people are actually saying and go by what they assume will happen to the candidate's beliefs when they become president. Well listen, it's a lot easier to say that to someone else when you actually want their full proposals but will settle for compromised proposals than when you are on the other side of things. To vote for a Democrat, even a moderate one, would be voting against issues I am very seriously vested in to get Trump out. I'm saying it's a lot easier for me to do that when people aren't going even further left.

Uhh if you took that personally, that's on you. Cause you aren't even in that message chain.

The difference between Trump and a Biden/Bernie/ basically anyone else, is that the Dem candidates have read the constitution. Heck Obama was a constitutional scholar. But if you want a president that will be the most reserved, and undo some of the dictatorial powers that basically Reagan onward have been adding to, Bernie is your man. Bernie is one of the few that voted not to go to war. Bernie has been a long time Senator, and knows that there is far more power in long-term legislation than anything he can do with executive power.

If congress passes a student debt relief bill, then what? That just means you're in the minority opinion of the general populace. When looking for a president, the real power they have is:

1. who will they appoint to their cabinet and courts
2. how will they behave on the international stage
3. do they have the temperament for foreign negotiations
4. do they respect the constitution and have a willingness to execute laws that they themselves may not even personally like.


Trump in my mind fails all these, a Warren, Bernie, Kamala, etc. all would make much better choices in these categories.

Legislation preferences and such is all fluff.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 199
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #577 on: July 17, 2019, 03:59:52 PM »
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.

Nah there is no one the Democratic party can nominate that will make Trump look reasonable.

What do you think of Klobach? I know she is not in the lead but she strikes me as a pragmatist. I also like Yang as well. Honestly while the ubi sounds crazy, it is the same price or less than our patchwork of social networks, with much less beuracratic headaches and decisions.

What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala. These people will make it sound as if they're planning on voting for them and then 3 weeks before the election will come up with some rationalization as to why they're going to vote for Trump or throw away their vote on McAffee or whoever the libertarian is *shudders at thought of Austin Petersen*

Nope, all these people who think they know that the only way to PA or WI is by running some neoliberal is complete hogwash to me. There are enough people who are willing to vote Democrat to win a majority in all federal elections. It only takes getting the vote out. So no, someone boring like Biden isn't going to do it. Kamala is a better choice for the neoliberals. But Bernie is exactly the person who attracts the rural white vote.

That's a jerky thing to say. You don't know what I'm going to do. I did not vote for Trump last time. I'm explaining legitimate concerns I have with far left candidates. I'll generalize now to join in with your generalizations, I guess - liberals in this thread seem to act like I should just ignore what people are actually saying and go by what they assume will happen to the candidate's beliefs when they become president. Well listen, it's a lot easier to say that to someone else when you actually want their full proposals but will settle for compromised proposals than when you are on the other side of things. To vote for a Democrat, even a moderate one, would be voting against issues I am very seriously vested in to get Trump out. I'm saying it's a lot easier for me to do that when people aren't going even further left.

Uhh if you took that personally, that's on you. Cause you aren't even in that message chain.

The difference between Trump and a Biden/Bernie/ basically anyone else, is that the Dem candidates have read the constitution. Heck Obama was a constitutional scholar. But if you want a president that will be the most reserved, and undo some of the dictatorial powers that basically Reagan onward have been adding to, Bernie is your man. Bernie is one of the few that voted not to go to war. Bernie has been a long time Senator, and knows that there is far more power in long-term legislation than anything he can do with executive power.

If congress passes a student debt relief bill, then what? That just means you're in the minority opinion of the general populace. When looking for a president, the real power they have is:

1. who will they appoint to their cabinet and courts
2. how will they behave on the international stage
3. do they have the temperament for foreign negotiations
4. do they respect the constitution and have a willingness to execute laws that they themselves may not even personally like.


Trump in my mind fails all these, a Warren, Bernie, Kamala, etc. all would make much better choices in these categories.

Legislation preferences and such is all fluff.

Uhhh...if you don't want people to take it personally, perhaps you should say what you mean (see what you said bolded and underlined above). You didn't say people in this message chain or conservatives in general. You specifically called out conservatives in this thread. This thread generally means this topic on the message board as best as I understand it. Furthermore, I am the one who specifically started this latest round of talks, as a conservative who is talking about voting for a moderate, so it's even less of a stretch to feel included in your generalization. Again, perhaps you should say what you mean or even better, don't generalize and don't assume what posters are actually going to do and accuse them of being disingenuous.

Since you didn't actually respond to what I said about why I feel that way, I'm not going to respond to yours except, it's certainly your prerogative to feel that "Legislation preferences and such is all fluff"...suffice it to say I don't feel that way.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #578 on: July 17, 2019, 04:55:53 PM »
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.

Nah there is no one the Democratic party can nominate that will make Trump look reasonable.

What do you think of Klobach? I know she is not in the lead but she strikes me as a pragmatist. I also like Yang as well. Honestly while the ubi sounds crazy, it is the same price or less than our patchwork of social networks, with much less beuracratic headaches and decisions.

What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala. These people will make it sound as if they're planning on voting for them and then 3 weeks before the election will come up with some rationalization as to why they're going to vote for Trump or throw away their vote on McAffee or whoever the libertarian is *shudders at thought of Austin Petersen*

Nope, all these people who think they know that the only way to PA or WI is by running some neoliberal is complete hogwash to me. There are enough people who are willing to vote Democrat to win a majority in all federal elections. It only takes getting the vote out. So no, someone boring like Biden isn't going to do it. Kamala is a better choice for the neoliberals. But Bernie is exactly the person who attracts the rural white vote.

That's a jerky thing to say. You don't know what I'm going to do. I did not vote for Trump last time. I'm explaining legitimate concerns I have with far left candidates. I'll generalize now to join in with your generalizations, I guess - liberals in this thread seem to act like I should just ignore what people are actually saying and go by what they assume will happen to the candidate's beliefs when they become president. Well listen, it's a lot easier to say that to someone else when you actually want their full proposals but will settle for compromised proposals than when you are on the other side of things. To vote for a Democrat, even a moderate one, would be voting against issues I am very seriously vested in to get Trump out. I'm saying it's a lot easier for me to do that when people aren't going even further left.

Uhh if you took that personally, that's on you. Cause you aren't even in that message chain.

The difference between Trump and a Biden/Bernie/ basically anyone else, is that the Dem candidates have read the constitution. Heck Obama was a constitutional scholar. But if you want a president that will be the most reserved, and undo some of the dictatorial powers that basically Reagan onward have been adding to, Bernie is your man. Bernie is one of the few that voted not to go to war. Bernie has been a long time Senator, and knows that there is far more power in long-term legislation than anything he can do with executive power.

If congress passes a student debt relief bill, then what? That just means you're in the minority opinion of the general populace. When looking for a president, the real power they have is:

1. who will they appoint to their cabinet and courts
2. how will they behave on the international stage
3. do they have the temperament for foreign negotiations
4. do they respect the constitution and have a willingness to execute laws that they themselves may not even personally like.


Trump in my mind fails all these, a Warren, Bernie, Kamala, etc. all would make much better choices in these categories.

Legislation preferences and such is all fluff.

Uhhh...if you don't want people to take it personally, perhaps you should say what you mean (see what you said bolded and underlined above). You didn't say people in this message chain or conservatives in general. You specifically called out conservatives in this thread. This thread generally means this topic on the message board as best as I understand it. Furthermore, I am the one who specifically started this latest round of talks, as a conservative who is talking about voting for a moderate, so it's even less of a stretch to feel included in your generalization. Again, perhaps you should say what you mean or even better, don't generalize and don't assume what posters are actually going to do and accuse them of being disingenuous.

Since you didn't actually respond to what I said about why I feel that way, I'm not going to respond to yours except, it's certainly your prerogative to feel that "Legislation preferences and such is all fluff"...suffice it to say I don't feel that way.

Dude. Very simply, if you are going to vote for someone like Biden in both the primary and general election, then what I said wasn't directed at you. I didn't say all conservatives everywhere and especially in this thread are guilty of x.

Very simply, there are a number of conservatives that will comment and push for a candidate like Biden, but even if Biden wins, will still vote for Trump. I don't blame people for playing this game, but it makes for disingenuous conversation. Again, if that's not you, then I wasn't talking about you.

I didn't respond because I don't consider myself a liberal, nor was I ever directing what I said to you. So if that was just a semi-veiled insult at me, then the only one being a jerk here is you.

So here is the English lesson for you.

Quote
What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala

conservatives is the subject
and the 'that' clause is the 'adjective clause' to define "what kind of conservative" I'm talking about.

Quote
You don't know what I'm going to do. I did not vote for Trump last time.

You obviously felt that that 'adjective clause' didn't apply to you yet still took it personally. So I'm not sure why you thought I was attacking you?

You seem to take my statement as a blatant attack on all conservatives

Quote
noun: bunch - a number of things, typically of the same kind

ie not 'all' but 'a lot'.



nick663

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
  • Location: midwest
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #579 on: July 17, 2019, 07:45:22 PM »
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

What? Like I get being a bit nervous at certain left leaning policies, but student debt forgiveness is the hard one to swallow?

Not only is it being proposed to be paid by a trading fee, but multiple academic studies show that it would have almost no effect on debt, interest rates, and would be a mild economic multiplier. Plus the only thing that is keep the US economy afloat right now is advanced education and its related labor. So I don't see how you don't do this. I also paid off all my loans. I don't care. No one needs to be 300k in debt. You can say it was consenting adults. Yeah but it's also protected from bankruptcy, and backed by nothing.

Not only that, but free college would create a reasonable limit to the price of college instead of the runaway tuition inflation we've been seeing.
Care to link some of those studies?  I wasn't aware that anyone had analyzed Warren's student loan plan and would be more than interested to learn.

Tuition free college is a separate discussion and something I'm much more ok with.  I was speaking only about student loan foregiveness in my post.

http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/the-macroeconomic-effects-of-student-debt-cancellation
Your previous post's claims don't match that study's findings as there is not "almost no effect on debt."  They found an increase of 0.65-0.9% of GDP on the deficit which equals a 126-175 billion dollar annual increase.  For context, NASA's annual budget is 21.5 billion and the Department of Transportation's budget is 84 billion.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #580 on: July 17, 2019, 08:28:30 PM »

Your previous post's claims don't match that study's findings as there is not "almost no effect on debt."  They found an increase of 0.65-0.9% of GDP on the deficit which equals a 126-175 billion dollar annual increase.  For context, NASA's annual budget is 21.5 billion and the Department of Transportation's budget is 84 billion.

We're talking about forgiving 1.4 Trillion dollars. And that causes a federal deficit increase no where near that amount. I'd say that that is a good tradeoff.

For our government's budget. An extra 150B is not all that much. We have a GDP of 20T.

But BUT even then the paper states:

Quote
Here again, the difference is significant, with simulation deficit impacts ranging between 0.65 and 0.75 percent of GDP, and deficit impacts relative to current levels ranging between 0.29 and 0.37 percent of GDP... But for the purpose of estimating actual deficit and national debt impacts relative to their current levels, the smaller estimates in Tables B.6 and B.8 are “correct.”

ie the deficit increase that we would see would be more in the 68-86B range. The government just increased the military's budget by 70B not all that long ago. Which is how people like Bernie Sanders can say that that whole unpaid for military budget increase could have paid for everyone's education.

Plus state budgets would improve their debt-GDP ratio:

Quote
The cancellation improves state budget positions such that, from the standpoint of a consolidated state-plus-federal budget, the net increase in the (consolidated) budget deficit is 0.10 to 0.12 percent of GDP lower than the increase for the federal government alone.

That is to say looking at government budgets as a whole, forgiving 1.4 Trillion in debt would cause a debt-GDP ratio increase of about 45-56 Billion.

Beyond that there was a whole list of items that the study explicitly didn't cover of potential for increased entrepreneurship, household formation, and credit score.

« Last Edit: July 17, 2019, 08:38:15 PM by FIPurpose »

nick663

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
  • Location: midwest
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #581 on: July 17, 2019, 09:01:07 PM »

Your previous post's claims don't match that study's findings as there is not "almost no effect on debt."  They found an increase of 0.65-0.9% of GDP on the deficit which equals a 126-175 billion dollar annual increase.  For context, NASA's annual budget is 21.5 billion and the Department of Transportation's budget is 84 billion.

We're talking about forgiving 1.4 Trillion dollars. And that causes a federal deficit increase no where near that amount. I'd say that that is a good tradeoff.

For our government's budget. An extra 150B is not all that much. We have a GDP of 20T.

But BUT even then the paper states:

Quote
Here again, the difference is significant, with simulation deficit impacts ranging between 0.65 and 0.75 percent of GDP, and deficit impacts relative to current levels ranging between 0.29 and 0.37 percent of GDP... But for the purpose of estimating actual deficit and national debt impacts relative to their current levels, the smaller estimates in Tables B.6 and B.8 are “correct.”

ie the deficit increase that we would see would be more in the 68-86B range. The government just increased the military's budget by 70B not all that long ago. Which is how people like Bernie Sanders can say that that whole unpaid for military budget increase could have paid for everyone's education.

Plus state budgets would improve their debt-GDP ratio:

Quote
The cancellation improves state budget positions such that, from the standpoint of a consolidated state-plus-federal budget, the net increase in the (consolidated) budget deficit is 0.10 to 0.12 percent of GDP lower than the increase for the federal government alone.

That is to say looking at government budgets as a whole, forgiving 1.4 Trillion in debt would cause a debt-GDP ratio increase of about 45-56 Billion.

Beyond that there was a whole list of items that the study explicitly didn't cover of potential for increased entrepreneurship, household formation, and credit score.
So, we're in agreement that it'll increase the deficit by a significant amount?  Great.  My position hasn't changed as the principals are still what I stated previously (adults entered into a contract they don't like anymore) and the financials don't work either.

Side note:  I find it interesting that on a board like MMM we don't have more deficit hawks.  I don't consider myself that extreme on the deficit but the fact that we're running 1 trillion dollar deficits in relatively good economic times scares the crap out of me... and EVERY candidate is up there talking about how they'll spend more, it's incredible.

MKinVA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #582 on: July 17, 2019, 09:24:19 PM »
Not sure this point was made, but it is concerning that tuition forgiveness also benefits a lot of people who can afford to pay their student debt. Maybe some restrictions, income restrictors, etc., are being considered but that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
I would support refinancing of student loans, forgiveness for teachers working in needy schools, same for nurses, doctors, etc., forcing universities with megawatt trust funds to use that money for tuition reduction before federal loans, maybe some forgiveness for STEM degrees. Again, doesn't fit on a bumper stickers.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1018
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #583 on: July 17, 2019, 09:31:03 PM »

Your previous post's claims don't match that study's findings as there is not "almost no effect on debt."  They found an increase of 0.65-0.9% of GDP on the deficit which equals a 126-175 billion dollar annual increase.  For context, NASA's annual budget is 21.5 billion and the Department of Transportation's budget is 84 billion.

We're talking about forgiving 1.4 Trillion dollars. And that causes a federal deficit increase no where near that amount. I'd say that that is a good tradeoff.

For our government's budget. An extra 150B is not all that much. We have a GDP of 20T.

But BUT even then the paper states:

Quote
Here again, the difference is significant, with simulation deficit impacts ranging between 0.65 and 0.75 percent of GDP, and deficit impacts relative to current levels ranging between 0.29 and 0.37 percent of GDP... But for the purpose of estimating actual deficit and national debt impacts relative to their current levels, the smaller estimates in Tables B.6 and B.8 are “correct.”

ie the deficit increase that we would see would be more in the 68-86B range. The government just increased the military's budget by 70B not all that long ago. Which is how people like Bernie Sanders can say that that whole unpaid for military budget increase could have paid for everyone's education.

Plus state budgets would improve their debt-GDP ratio:

Quote
The cancellation improves state budget positions such that, from the standpoint of a consolidated state-plus-federal budget, the net increase in the (consolidated) budget deficit is 0.10 to 0.12 percent of GDP lower than the increase for the federal government alone.

That is to say looking at government budgets as a whole, forgiving 1.4 Trillion in debt would cause a debt-GDP ratio increase of about 45-56 Billion.

Beyond that there was a whole list of items that the study explicitly didn't cover of potential for increased entrepreneurship, household formation, and credit score.
So, we're in agreement that it'll increase the deficit by a significant amount?  Great.  My position hasn't changed as the principals are still what I stated previously (adults entered into a contract they don't like anymore) and the financials don't work either.

Side note:  I find it interesting that on a board like MMM we don't have more deficit hawks.  I don't consider myself that extreme on the deficit but the fact that we're running 1 trillion dollar deficits in relatively good economic times scares the crap out of me... and EVERY candidate is up there talking about how they'll spend more, it's incredible.

Lol ok, you don't understand economics or the debt.

Republicans cut taxes to the tune of 200B annual increased deficit and increase the military budget by 70B.

Bernie proposes to pay for college education with a wallstreet trade tax making it deficit neutral, would likely seek to reimpose Obama era level taxation, and would favor reducing military spending. And you're saying you're the deficit hawk?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 199
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #584 on: July 18, 2019, 05:54:41 AM »
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.

Nah there is no one the Democratic party can nominate that will make Trump look reasonable.

What do you think of Klobach? I know she is not in the lead but she strikes me as a pragmatist. I also like Yang as well. Honestly while the ubi sounds crazy, it is the same price or less than our patchwork of social networks, with much less beuracratic headaches and decisions.

What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala. These people will make it sound as if they're planning on voting for them and then 3 weeks before the election will come up with some rationalization as to why they're going to vote for Trump or throw away their vote on McAffee or whoever the libertarian is *shudders at thought of Austin Petersen*

Nope, all these people who think they know that the only way to PA or WI is by running some neoliberal is complete hogwash to me. There are enough people who are willing to vote Democrat to win a majority in all federal elections. It only takes getting the vote out. So no, someone boring like Biden isn't going to do it. Kamala is a better choice for the neoliberals. But Bernie is exactly the person who attracts the rural white vote.

That's a jerky thing to say. You don't know what I'm going to do. I did not vote for Trump last time. I'm explaining legitimate concerns I have with far left candidates. I'll generalize now to join in with your generalizations, I guess - liberals in this thread seem to act like I should just ignore what people are actually saying and go by what they assume will happen to the candidate's beliefs when they become president. Well listen, it's a lot easier to say that to someone else when you actually want their full proposals but will settle for compromised proposals than when you are on the other side of things. To vote for a Democrat, even a moderate one, would be voting against issues I am very seriously vested in to get Trump out. I'm saying it's a lot easier for me to do that when people aren't going even further left.

Uhh if you took that personally, that's on you. Cause you aren't even in that message chain.

The difference between Trump and a Biden/Bernie/ basically anyone else, is that the Dem candidates have read the constitution. Heck Obama was a constitutional scholar. But if you want a president that will be the most reserved, and undo some of the dictatorial powers that basically Reagan onward have been adding to, Bernie is your man. Bernie is one of the few that voted not to go to war. Bernie has been a long time Senator, and knows that there is far more power in long-term legislation than anything he can do with executive power.

If congress passes a student debt relief bill, then what? That just means you're in the minority opinion of the general populace. When looking for a president, the real power they have is:

1. who will they appoint to their cabinet and courts
2. how will they behave on the international stage
3. do they have the temperament for foreign negotiations
4. do they respect the constitution and have a willingness to execute laws that they themselves may not even personally like.


Trump in my mind fails all these, a Warren, Bernie, Kamala, etc. all would make much better choices in these categories.

Legislation preferences and such is all fluff.

Uhhh...if you don't want people to take it personally, perhaps you should say what you mean (see what you said bolded and underlined above). You didn't say people in this message chain or conservatives in general. You specifically called out conservatives in this thread. This thread generally means this topic on the message board as best as I understand it. Furthermore, I am the one who specifically started this latest round of talks, as a conservative who is talking about voting for a moderate, so it's even less of a stretch to feel included in your generalization. Again, perhaps you should say what you mean or even better, don't generalize and don't assume what posters are actually going to do and accuse them of being disingenuous.

Since you didn't actually respond to what I said about why I feel that way, I'm not going to respond to yours except, it's certainly your prerogative to feel that "Legislation preferences and such is all fluff"...suffice it to say I don't feel that way.

Dude. Very simply, if you are going to vote for someone like Biden in both the primary and general election, then what I said wasn't directed at you. I didn't say all conservatives everywhere and especially in this thread are guilty of x.

Very simply, there are a number of conservatives that will comment and push for a candidate like Biden, but even if Biden wins, will still vote for Trump. I don't blame people for playing this game, but it makes for disingenuous conversation. Again, if that's not you, then I wasn't talking about you.

I didn't respond because I don't consider myself a liberal, nor was I ever directing what I said to you. So if that was just a semi-veiled insult at me, then the only one being a jerk here is you.

So here is the English lesson for you.

Quote
What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala

conservatives is the subject
and the 'that' clause is the 'adjective clause' to define "what kind of conservative" I'm talking about.

Quote
You don't know what I'm going to do. I did not vote for Trump last time.

You obviously felt that that 'adjective clause' didn't apply to you yet still took it personally. So I'm not sure why you thought I was attacking you?

You seem to take my statement as a blatant attack on all conservatives

Quote
noun: bunch - a number of things, typically of the same kind

ie not 'all' but 'a lot'.

I'm being a jerk......seriously? Your continued persistence lead me to re-read our entire dialogue. Let me recap:

You make an antagonistic and comment about conservatives being disingenuous. This is an extremely insulting assertion to make on an internet forum. No one knows anyone here. We have to take people at face value unless they prove otherwise, or what is the point of actual discussion. To declare someone as disingenuous without cause is seriously harsh.

I call you out on your statement. You say, oh, it wasn't directed at you, after all, you're not even on this message chain. I explain that the message chain is not what you said, disproving that argument. You don't acknowledge (hey, who's got time to admit they were proven wrong on the internet...amirite?) that your argument was disproven and move on to there to very condescendingly insult my reading comprehension.

Your argument that if it doesn't apply to you don't worry about it is, frankly, stupid. It's the same argument used by any bigot making bigoted generalizations of groups saying, if it doesn't apply to you, don't worry, I wasn't talking about you. Shoot, we're on the topic of politics, let's use that as an example. Hispanics and/or Mexican immigrants shouldn't be offended that Trump said Mexico was sending rapists. After all, Mexico isn't actually sending everyone, some are coming of their own accord. He was only talking about immigrants that are rapists...if it doesn't apply to you, don't worry about, right? It's a ridiculous line of logic.

If you had commented, hey, some conservative, somewhere is probably being disingenous, I wouldn't have commented. There's millions of conservatives, sure, someone's being disingenous. Instead you commented (and just becuase you didn't bold it in your snide remark doesn't mean it wasn't there) "What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread" That comment specifically calls out conservatives in this thread. There's only a handful of us. Your comment implies that there are conservatives on this thread being disingenous. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, that casts a pall on conservatives on this thread for being disingenous. So I will restate what I said to begin with. It's a jerkish thing to say. You've continued to act jerkishly by not admitting flawed logic and condescending about me not actually reading what's been said. It's not helping anything, and you should stop.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3248
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #585 on: July 18, 2019, 06:45:00 AM »
I am concerned about the fact that congress can't seem to balance the budget.  I learn democratic in that I think restoring taxes to the way they were structured during Obamas or Clinton's adminitstration (which are more fair btw), not giving Defense an unasked for additional 70 B, could allow for universal health coverage. Universal health coverage in other countries, has found to be less expensive per capita, than what we are currently spending on healthcare, with better outcomes, which are less health disparities, better prenatal care and less birth and post birth mortality, better coverage of vaccinations, overall better public health which benefits everyone, including employers because they have less sick workers.

It's really about priorities. Do we really need to spend more on our military when we already spend more on defense than the next 4 countries COMBINED? Do we really need to give the ultra rich even more tax breaks at the expense of the other 99%?  I personally would be in favor of some level of reducing college education loan burden. Whether that is forgiveness of interest accrued or something even more as long as it is deficit neutral.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1801
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #586 on: July 18, 2019, 06:47:43 AM »
I'm a conservative. For the most part, I'm not that interested in the Democratic party.  On the other hand, the candidate may win and be in charge of our country, so of course, I'm interested.  I am also curious about which candidate would have the best chance of winning against Trump.  But my thoughts are not settled on this.  Trump might get beaten out of pure anti-Trump sentiment, rather than the positive qualities of the Democratic candidate.  Or he might not.  Who is the most moderate Dem in this pack?

MKinVA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #587 on: July 18, 2019, 07:55:43 AM »
I am going to say Mayor Pete is the most moderate depending on what moderate means.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #588 on: July 18, 2019, 08:00:33 AM »
Are Republicans still conservatives?

I mean I think of conservatives as people who want to handle the money right.  They want a balanced budget.  This makes good sense to me and I agree with it.  Long term I think there is problems with borrowing to pay for the countries needs.  In particular, when the borrowing means the nations treasury must flow to other nations.  They also want the most bang for the buck and I don't mean military only.  They are against wasteful spending.

It doesn't seem like today's Republicans are true conservatives.  They are something else.

MKinVA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #589 on: July 18, 2019, 08:26:13 AM »
Pecunia, Agreed. 25 years ago, people used to say, I am fiscally conservative and a social liberal. I don't know what that means anymore.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #590 on: July 18, 2019, 08:45:12 AM »
I am going to say Mayor Pete is the most moderate depending on what moderate means.
Really? I’d say Biden is moreso.

I think Mayor Pete is one of the most progressive. He is calling for structural overhaul that goes beyond what government does, to how it works. Calling for Supreme Court reform and Popular vote. His in-depth plan for “reparations”....not himhawing with “I will put together a committee to explore and research”, like most other candidates in the history of elections; but a ready-made plan to address the financial consequences of systemic racial inequality, both past and present.

He may not be for all out tuition forgiveness or or free college for everyone, but his National Service Plan is just as progressive, like JFK’s Peace Corp. He may not be for Mcare for all as a next step, he’s made it fairly clear that it’s the goal.

I think just because healthcare and education seem to be the current progressive symbols of today,  It’s a mistake to only rely on those as the definition.

IMO Biden’s version of partisan dichotomy, is the equivalence of hard vs soft taco. Same ingredients but different exterior.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2019, 08:49:50 AM by Lmoot »

MKinVA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #591 on: July 18, 2019, 09:15:05 AM »
I might end up agreeing with you, but Biden hasn't really been forthcoming on his actual plans. He is all Hey folks let's build on what we have, Obamacare, don't throw the baby out, etc. But what are the specifics? He hasn't really said. Public option in expanded Medicare but basically what we have (pricing? prescriptions? portability?)
Is moderate just not liberal...or not socialist?...or somewhat conservative? I honestly dont' know what the middle ground is anymore, but Joe Biden seems to be the old "go along to get along" kind of democrat that most people I know are tired of.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #592 on: July 18, 2019, 09:46:57 AM »
^ Exactly your last point. I feel like public service is a career for him, and he just wants to ride it out without rocking the boat.  But I, and a lot of other younger people, and older people too, are just ready for something different. And I don’t think we would be at that point if it weren’t for Trump to be honest. It’s like Trump shook the Etch-a-Sketch, and now is our window of opportunity to draw something new. And we need to.

A lot has changed since the last time we’ve had major reform. With the recession, this presidency, nearly 2 decades of war. America is only 243 years old, and has earned the reputation of being extremely progressive. There is a reason why America is often referred to as an experiment. However looking at the last 30+ years, you wouldn’t guess it. What began with a passion and drive to create, has settled into career politicians who are out for themselves and doing what they can to hang on for dear life. I am so done with that.

MKinVA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #593 on: July 18, 2019, 10:03:16 AM »
I agree with you 100% and I am an older person (59). We need the next president and Congress to look to the future. Create an economic environment for entrepreneurs, not factory workers. Healthcare should not be tied to employers, neither should retirement/investment plans. Those programs should be totally portable. Why can't everyone just squirrel away however much money they want tax free for retirement? I bet there would not be anymore extreme savers than we have now. Why can't health insurance be nationwide? Why does it have to be so expensive to have a bank account? And to not have a bank account?  I had hoped that the Obama years would be this kind of reset. I am disappointed.
Sorry, I think I went off topic there.

nick663

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
  • Location: midwest
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #594 on: July 18, 2019, 10:07:39 AM »

Your previous post's claims don't match that study's findings as there is not "almost no effect on debt."  They found an increase of 0.65-0.9% of GDP on the deficit which equals a 126-175 billion dollar annual increase.  For context, NASA's annual budget is 21.5 billion and the Department of Transportation's budget is 84 billion.

We're talking about forgiving 1.4 Trillion dollars. And that causes a federal deficit increase no where near that amount. I'd say that that is a good tradeoff.

For our government's budget. An extra 150B is not all that much. We have a GDP of 20T.

But BUT even then the paper states:

Quote
Here again, the difference is significant, with simulation deficit impacts ranging between 0.65 and 0.75 percent of GDP, and deficit impacts relative to current levels ranging between 0.29 and 0.37 percent of GDP... But for the purpose of estimating actual deficit and national debt impacts relative to their current levels, the smaller estimates in Tables B.6 and B.8 are “correct.”

ie the deficit increase that we would see would be more in the 68-86B range. The government just increased the military's budget by 70B not all that long ago. Which is how people like Bernie Sanders can say that that whole unpaid for military budget increase could have paid for everyone's education.

Plus state budgets would improve their debt-GDP ratio:

Quote
The cancellation improves state budget positions such that, from the standpoint of a consolidated state-plus-federal budget, the net increase in the (consolidated) budget deficit is 0.10 to 0.12 percent of GDP lower than the increase for the federal government alone.

That is to say looking at government budgets as a whole, forgiving 1.4 Trillion in debt would cause a debt-GDP ratio increase of about 45-56 Billion.

Beyond that there was a whole list of items that the study explicitly didn't cover of potential for increased entrepreneurship, household formation, and credit score.
So, we're in agreement that it'll increase the deficit by a significant amount?  Great.  My position hasn't changed as the principals are still what I stated previously (adults entered into a contract they don't like anymore) and the financials don't work either.

Side note:  I find it interesting that on a board like MMM we don't have more deficit hawks.  I don't consider myself that extreme on the deficit but the fact that we're running 1 trillion dollar deficits in relatively good economic times scares the crap out of me... and EVERY candidate is up there talking about how they'll spend more, it's incredible.

Lol ok, you don't understand economics or the debt.

Republicans cut taxes to the tune of 200B annual increased deficit and increase the military budget by 70B.

Bernie proposes to pay for college education with a wallstreet trade tax making it deficit neutral, would likely seek to reimpose Obama era level taxation, and would favor reducing military spending. And you're saying you're the deficit hawk?
I'm not the one calling adding 50+ billion to the deficit "almost no effect." 

Giving examples of bad Republican policies doesn't make the Democratic boondoggle less bad.

Neither Bernie nor Warren's plan has been analyzed for what they would do to the deficit/economy and any taxation changes nullify the conclusions in the study you posted.  I generally agree that over the past couple decades that Democratic administrations have run lower deficits but all of them have been much closer to the center than Bernie or Warren.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1801
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #595 on: July 18, 2019, 10:08:06 AM »
I agree with your assessment that Biden is a poor candidate because he is so old school status quo.  It will be interesting if the Dems just hand it to him, or go with a fresher candidate.  I think of him like a Bob Dole.

It seems that Hillary was the candidate, and there is a trend to go with the person who's next in line.  Obama was not the next in line, and that worked very well.

I think everyone gets tired of career politicians.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1801
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #596 on: July 18, 2019, 10:09:23 AM »
I agree with you 100% and I am an older person (59). We need the next president and Congress to look to the future. Create an economic environment for entrepreneurs, not factory workers. Healthcare should not be tied to employers, neither should retirement/investment plans. Those programs should be totally portable. Why can't everyone just squirrel away however much money they want tax free for retirement? I bet there would not be anymore extreme savers than we have now. Why can't health insurance be nationwide? Why does it have to be so expensive to have a bank account? And to not have a bank account?  I had hoped that the Obama years would be this kind of reset. I am disappointed.
Sorry, I think I went off topic there.

I don't understand your "expensive to have a bank account" statement.

MKinVA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #597 on: July 18, 2019, 10:24:22 AM »
Most banks require you to have a certain amount to not pay fees. And the fees can be very high. I use a credit union because I am eligible, but a lot of people only have access to large banks.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3248
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #598 on: July 18, 2019, 10:32:19 AM »
Most banks require you to have a certain amount to not pay fees. And the fees can be very high. I use a credit union because I am eligible, but a lot of people only have access to large banks.

I use Ally, an electronic "bank" which is no fees (and higher interest rate as well). There are also credit unions.

MKinVA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #599 on: July 18, 2019, 11:06:16 AM »
https://econreview.berkeley.edu/banking-and-poverty-why-the-poor-turn-to-alternative-financial-services/

A lot of it has to do with people who live in a cash world. The e-banking has not really caught up with them yet.