Jump to content
ryanlammi

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

FWIW - he's given a couple of speeches wherein he explicitly acknowledges fault as the mayor of South Bend for failing to adequately address the plight of black citizens. 

 

That's fine and all, but I mean was it more a case of neglect or more a case of willful attacks on the black community?  It's being made out as the latter.  I'm just interested to know his on-the-ground directives and policies as mayor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SWOH said:


This entire thread proves the Pete hate has nothing to do with his policy.

 

And that’s the thing for me, I’d vote for just about anything over Oompa Loompa Trump, McConnell the Turtle man, or the rest of the Republican clown car. If we could even reverse it back to the politics of Republicans like Eisenhower, or even Bob Dole, then there would be an honest choice.

 

But right now we have people literally saying they’d sit at home and not vote for a solid progressive like Pete, which in turn helps people like Kellyanne the Witch, over voting for whoever the Dem nominee is... which is insanity. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not on board with college debt repayment for all or the elimination of health insurance choice but I sure as hell would support Sanders or Warren over Trump.

 

That being said, my parents would not. They would sit at home or even vote FOR Trump to keep policies that lead to 50+% taxation rates out of office. Same goes for basically every other OH moderate I know. It’s not a large sample, but it’s big enough to show me that we really need Warren/Sanders to shift away from being left of Sweden politically if we have a ghost of a chance of winning.

 

And I get the Clinton counterargument. Yes it didn’t work in 2016, but IMO that was the fault of the candidate, not the policy. Her weakness and the lack of competition is exactly what allowed Sanders to have an opening. IDK if you guys remember but he was a very long shot candidate in 2015, like Tulsi Gabbard or Marianne Williamson now. There was no choice. Now that we have choice, it makes sense to nominate a solid progressive that won’t have a book full of unpopular, easily attacks or policies.

 

I mean, it's not like Republicans won't lie about whoever gets the nomination.  They have proven they're willing to go to any lengths to win, so it won't really matter whether the nominee is moderate or progressive.  And the reality is that a lot of moderates, especially older ones, are going to be easily influenced by such attacks.  I'm not sure how that can be avoided.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I have to wonder if the blossoming Pete hate is rooted in some things that have nothing to do with policy.  We are still talking about an America that elected the most vile, bigoted person to run in generations.  

I've been sitting in first class on the anti Pete train waiting for the seats to fill in. choo choo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I mean, it's not like Republicans won't lie about whoever gets the nomination.  They have proven they're willing to go to any lengths to win, so it won't really matter whether the nominee is moderate or progressive.  And the reality is that a lot of moderates, especially older ones, are going to be easily influenced by such attacks.  I'm not sure how that can be avoided.  


That is true, a lot will... but there’s also a lot that won’t.

 

Like with Hillary. I think the main reason she didn’t get the electoral college, even though she got the popular vote by 3+ million people, is because she never visited the states where the margins were slim... Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. She lost each of those by narrow enough margins that the Russians could have easily hacked it and done it. But while she wasn’t in those places, Trump was there all the time. She didn’t put up a fight because she was horrible at putting her message out there.

 

IDK why Biden is doing the same now, but he seems to have the same hiding strategy. Buttigieg does not. If he or the other Dems keep on the forefront and keep putting themselves out there they will win. People go for the best ideas, and the Dems have the best ideas. Republicans only have the best fear, and the best antidote to that fear is a calm, collected person to fight it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

I've been sitting in first class on the anti Pete train waiting for the seats to fill in. choo choo!

 

Um, cool?  The only argument I've seen from you today is that he worked at a place you don't like.  Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but I am just expecting a bit more discussion related to his policies.  Not willing to support him because of his employment history or because he didn't solve 350 years of systemic racism doesn't seem all that fair or reasonable.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jonoh81 said:

 

Um, cool?  The only argument I've seen from you today is that he worked at a place you don't like.  Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but I am just expecting a bit more discussion related to his policies.  Not willing to support him because of his employment history or because he didn't solve 350 years of systemic racism doesn't seem all that fair or reasonable.  

 

well you keep emphasizing policies, and yeah his are ok, aside from no m4a and imperialism. healthcare is the #1 issue.

 

but even so, I fundamentally don't believe he is completely sincere in his support for all of his progressive policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Did he implement any specific policies that increased black arrests or prevented black people from being hired to the South Bend police force?  Did he specifically demand that women not be hired in contracting jobs?  How much power does the South Bend mayor actually have in these matters?  In some places, mayors are little more than figureheads for promoting their respective cities.  What about South Bend city council?  How are its members elected?  Did they, at any point, attempt to address any of these issues?  Did Pete attempt to stop them from addressing these issues?  I honestly don't know the answers to these questions.  I'm just wanting to know his actual role in these matters beyond the title of mayor.

 

I mean, as Yabo said, he's acknowledged he "didn't get it done" on some matters regarding the black community - notably police violence on one of the debate stages.

 

He's in his 8th year as Mayor, so I'm not sure why people should suddenly trust he'll be able to "get it done" at the federal level.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

well you keep emphasizing policies, and yeah his are ok, aside from no m4a and imperialism. healthcare is the #1 issue.

 

but even so, I fundamentally don't believe he is completely sincere in his support for all of his progressive policies.

 

Have you seen The Politician on Netflix? He reminds me of Ben Platt's character.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

Doubling down on the complete misrepresentation of his words. Cool.

 

 

According to what I read from your post, the Chair didn't know who they talked to. Claiming he got zero input from the black community cannot be said. But you'll say anything to claim Buttigieg is some ridiculous cartoon villain. I really hope you don't write him off if he becomes the nominee.

 

Are you going to acknowledge any fault in the rollout of the Douglass Plan, with his campaign claiming support that apparently wasn't entirely accurate or are you just going to double down on defending Buttigieg at every turn?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Um, cool?  The only argument I've seen from you today is that he worked at a place you don't like.  Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but I am just expecting a bit more discussion related to his policies. 

 

So I was open to Pete at the beginning, as an option, though I didn't consider him realistic because being Mayor of a town of 100k people isn't good enough experience, imo, to be President.  Still, I listened. I followed his media blitz early on that led to his bump.  He came out as a generational change, democratic reform progressive. He event hinted at packing SCOTUS. Cool, I'm in on this guy. He was in my top 3 of "considering" and I still don't have a strongly preferred candidate.

 

Then, this summer, he took in fundraising from lobbyists and billionaires and since then, he's made a hard then right.

 

On policy, which is your request:

1) He was for MFA before he was against it.  His supporters will say "Medicare for All" was a vague term, but as a candidate for DNC chair in 2017, Pete knew exactly what it meant.  He even says he supports the end game of M4A - that he thinks citizens will choose his public option. It's woefully naive, but even so, if single payer is the "direction we should head as a country," why is he demonizing Sanders and Warren for proposing just that?

2) His "court reform" proposal is laughably naive. It completely misses the moment we are in and how conservatives have weaponized the courts.

3) He worked with a fake health care center rather than standing up for women's right to choose in South Bend.

4) He was perfectly fine participating in events with the Tea Party in 2010.

 

That's what I know of quickly, without getting more into the weeds.  I have no doubt Pete really wants to be President Pete.  I don't think his experience stands up to most of the candidates in the field. I also don't think he's particularly trustworthy given his spotty record as Mayor and I don't think some of "signature" proposals are all that well thought out.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

So I was open to Pete at the beginning, as an option, though I didn't consider him realistic because being Mayor of a town of 100k people isn't good enough experience, imo, to be President.  Still, I listened. I followed his media blitz early on that led to his bump.  He came out as a generational change, democratic reform progressive. He event hinted at packing SCOTUS. Cool, I'm in on this guy. He was in my top 3 of "considering" and I still don't have a strongly preferred candidate.

 

Then, this summer, he took in fundraising from lobbyists and billionaires and since then, he's made a hard then right.

 

On policy, which is your request:

1) He was for MFA before he was against it.  His supporters will say "Medicare for All" was a vague term, but as a candidate for DNC chair in 2017, Pete knew exactly what it meant.  He even says he supports the end game of M4A - that he thinks citizens will choose his public option. It's woefully naive, but even so, if single payer is the "direction we should head as a country," why is he demonizing Sanders and Warren for proposing just that?

2) His "court reform" proposal is laughably naive. It completely misses the moment we are in and how conservatives have weaponized the courts.

3) He worked with a fake health care center rather than standing up for women's right to choose in South Bend.

4) He was perfectly fine participating in events with the Tea Party in 2010.

 

That's what I know of quickly, without getting more into the weeds.  I have no doubt Pete really wants to be President Pete.  I don't think his experience stands up to most of the candidates in the field. I also don't think he's particularly trustworthy given his spotty record as Mayor and I don't think some of "signature" proposals are all that well thought out.

 

Ok.  I mean thanks for the answer, but still struggling a bit with the hate.  There is not an existing candidate who doesn't have questionable policy proposals and past actions, let alone gaffes or position changes.  I'm wondering what makes Buttigieg's worse, and I don't think I've gotten a good answer to that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

I think you're confusing valid criticism with hate.

 

No, I'm really not.  Again, name one candidate who doesn't have all those same issues.  I'm not even a big Pete supporter, I just think there's a bit of a double standard here and he's getting far more criticism for common issues with politicians.  Biden can't keep a story straight.  Warren has hedged several times on M4A when asked about how it would be paid for, among other things.  Tulsi is a train wreck.  I'm not disagreeing that Pete and others don't have issues, because they do.  I just fail to see what makes his issues worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

No, I'm really not.  Again, name one candidate who doesn't have all those same issues.  I'm not even a big Pete supporter, I just think there's a bit of a double standard here and he's getting far more criticism for common issues with politicians.  Biden can't keep a story straight.  Warren has hedged several times on M4A when asked about how it would be paid for, among other things.  Tulsi is a train wreck.  I'm not disagreeing that Pete and others don't have issues, because they do.  I just fail to see what makes his issues worse.

one Bernard Sanders. He has the most consistent record with the fewest blemishes and question marks, despite his long tenure. you know who he is because he's been saying the same thing for 40+ years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

one Bernard Sanders. He has the most consistent record with the fewest blemishes and question marks, despite his long tenure. you know who he is because he's been saying the same thing for 40+ years.

 

There are plenty of people who would say that many of his proposals are pie in the sky and not remotely realistic.  I don't have a problem with him personally, but I question his electability. Republicans are going to tear him apart on the "socialism" stuff.  And these days, more people are scared of that than they are someone who wants to make the US into a dictatorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

There are plenty of people who would say that many of his proposals are pie in the sky and not remotely realistic.  I don't have a problem with him personally, but I question his electability. Republicans are going to tear him apart on the "socialism" stuff.  And these days, more people are scared of that than they are someone who wants to make the US into a dictatorship.

 

12 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Ok.  I mean thanks for the answer, but still struggling a bit with the hate.  There is not an existing candidate who doesn't have questionable policy proposals and past actions, let alone gaffes or position changes.  I'm wondering what makes Buttigieg's worse, and I don't think I've gotten a good answer to that.  

Maybe some subconscious homophobia emerging?  He is openly gay and this is the real elephant in the room and in these times it will always be there when you have an LGBT+ person in a national discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Bernie has been doing well with blue-collar voters despite at least seven years of "socialist" whining.

 

And Hillary was popular as Sec. of State.  Propaganda works.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

There are plenty of people who would say that many of his proposals are pie in the sky and not remotely realistic.  I don't have a problem with him personally, but I question his electability. Republicans are going to tear him apart on the "socialism" stuff.  And these days, more people are scared of that than they are someone who wants to make the US into a dictatorship.

Well the ones crying "socialism" are either disingenuous or ignorant of what socialism is. More exposure to socialist-leaning candidates will help the latter, and there is no helping the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Bernie has been doing well with blue-collar voters despite at least seven years of "socialist" whining.

 

Bernie does well with blue collar voters for the same reason Trump does. Over-simplistic answers to wildly complex problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Ok.  I mean thanks for the answer, but still struggling a bit with the hate.  There is not an existing candidate who doesn't have questionable policy proposals and past actions, let alone gaffes or position changes.  I'm wondering what makes Buttigieg's worse, and I don't think I've gotten a good answer to that.  

 

There are multiple candidates I like better at the moment.  Offering criticisms of his policy proposals and critiquing his previous thoughts on the educational gap isn't "hate."

 

He aligns more with the "hawkish" wing of the party, refusing to commit to reducing the defense budget - another policy example.


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pete-buttigiegs-pac-was-supposed-to-help-elect-democrats-it-mostly-promoted-him_n_5ddd6cbde4b0913e6f74ff7e

 

Quote

Pete Buttigieg launched a political action committee in June 2017 to relatively little fanfare. The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, at the time was still a minor political figure. He had made an unsuccessful run for Democratic National Committee chairman and been the subject of some positive press from national columnists, but he was little-known nationally.

 

His PAC, dubbed “Hitting Home,” would “mobilize resources to elect Democrats, at every level and in communities both red and blue, who will put the lived experiences of Americans front and center,” Buttigieg wrote.

 

“We will support candidates who focus on showing voters what we are for — not just what we are against — and understand how to do so in terms of our everyday lives,” he continued.

Two years later, as his 2020 presidential campaign began to take off, Buttigieg shut down the group. And it hadn’t come close to living up to his billing of its aims.

 

His PAC raised ~$400k.  Just $37k was donated to other Democratic candidates.

Quote

At the same time, the PAC paid nearly $70,000 to Lis Smith, who served as Buttigieg’s spokesperson and became the communications director for his presidential bid. Another $27,500 went to Michael Schmuhl, who served as the PAC’s treasurer and is now Buttigieg’s campaign manager. The PAC’s finance director received $34,500. A top Democratic media consulting firm was paid $28,500.

 


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

Bernie does well with blue collar voters for the same reason Trump does. Over-simplistic answers to wildly complex problems. 

Simplistic answers are what voters want and can understand. Most people don't want to be buried in procedure. They know that sh*t doesn't work for them and they need a change.

 

Take college tuition and student loan debt. Free college, forgive student debt, bing bang boom. We can afford it, we just need the political will for it. Meanwhile Buttigieg trots out the exact same plan that Harris did that I thought was complete satire when I heard it: partial loan forgiveness for minority Pell grant recipients who start a business that employs 3 or more people right out of college. Maybe that will help a few people? But it doesn't help most people. It's just pure optics, it doesn't actually solve anything.

 

Lead with your best offer, don't compromise before you get to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

: partial loan forgiveness for minority Pell grant recipients who start a business that employs 3 or more people right out of college.

 

Jesus that is so specific. Talk about picking winners and losers. It's so reckless to have that many people when you are first getting started and especially right out of school. I guess we'll be oversupplied with web design firms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

Simplistic answers are what voters want and can understand. Most people don't want to be buried in procedure. They know that sh*t doesn't work for them and they need a change.

 

Take college tuition and student loan debt. Free college, forgive student debt, bing bang boom. We can afford it, we just need the political will for it. Meanwhile Buttigieg trots out the exact same plan that Harris did that I thought was complete satire when I heard it: partial loan forgiveness for minority Pell grant recipients who start a business that employs 3 or more people right out of college. Maybe that will help a few people? But it doesn't help most people. It's just pure optics, it doesn't actually solve anything.

 

Lead with your best offer, don't compromise before you get to the table.

 

With all due respect - most voters know what they want but have no idea what they need. Call it elitist, call it whatever, but that's why populist candidates are so dangerous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

With all due respect - most voters know what they want but have no idea what they need. Call it elitist, call it whatever, but that's why populist candidates are so dangerous

 

The thing is, a right-populist candidate can strike a note with left-populist voters, and vice versa, when running against a candidate perceived as non-populist.

That's a big part of why Trump won.   He could appeal to left-leaning voters turned off by Hillary's perceived corruption and indifference to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish the emphasis was not on anything related to the word "socialist" but instead something like "mixed economy" or more of a "mixed economy" than we have now. I think what the left here wants is closer to the mixed economies of Western and Northern Europe which are not only mixed but are more egalitarian societies in general, and the word "socialism" has been demonized. Is The Netherlands, Norway, etc. socialist as Americans tend to think of socialist? Hell no. Americans tend to think of socialism as a  monolithic friend of communism and that is what the right is serving up to the public. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Socialism" is among the broadest brushes in modern political parlance.  It encompasses everything from the historical USSR (Holodomor and all the rest) to Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, modern China, mid-20th century China (despite some fairly major differences there, to put it mildly), Germany, and the Scandinavian countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "Socialist" means nothing to me since we are Socialist already. Us. Now. The cops and firefighters aren't for profits and the roads aren't all tolled and private, so we're Socialist. Among other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 11:21 AM, Ram23 said:

 

You can say a lot about Trump, but one thing you can't really call him is a hypocrite, which is the key point. Trump is rather unabashed about who he is - which is why his coastal elitism didn't hurt him, and in fact ended up helping him get elected, and has since helped him lead the country into wildly prosperous times.

 

Please elaborate on Trumps unabashed openness of who he is! 🤔

Start with the problem that he won't have time to golf like Obama did, and end with Trump tweeting a picture of his head on Sly Stallone's body.  🤣

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 5:02 PM, Gramarye said:

I was almost about to preemptively address that in my earlier post.  Is there anything you would accept other than equality of outcome to judge that systemic racism has been overcome, and concede that any remaining disparity is not the result of systemic factors?

 

It may be possible. But it's very unlikely, because my entire lifetime will probably be spent in the early days of correcting these issues. Centuries were spent laying the groundwork for the issues faced today. Hopefully it takes less time to make things right. It doesn't look that way right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm for a college plan that makes all community and trade schools free first, then over time expand it to public universities.  Tennessee and others are pioneering this option, and I think it would be prudent to go this direction first.  We need to push young people that may avoid college all-together into these tracks and fix this widening divide in educational achievement.  Eventually this can move to public university, but there will be downward price pressure on university tuition to compete with the incredible value of community and trade schools in the meantime at a much more affordable price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

I'm for a college plan that makes all community and trade schools free first, then over time expand it to public universities.  Tennessee and others are pioneering this option, and I think it would be prudent to go this direction first.  We need to push young people that may avoid college all-together into these tracks and fix this widening divide in educational achievement.  Eventually this can move to public university, but there will be downward price pressure on university tuition to compete with the incredible value of community and trade schools in the meantime at a much more affordable price.

 

I think a lot of Conservatives would be on board with getting 2 year community colleges and trade programs to nominal pricing - i.e. cost of registration, etc.... and tbh I think that's an excellent option. 

 

Part of the problem with student loans is that many kids realize - in college - that college isn't for them, this helps mitigate debt in those situations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, X said:

You think?  You seem to have a strangely outsized axe to grind re: Pete.

 

Do you care to engage in actual discussion?  Pete seems to be taking a position that Social Security, Medicare, public schools, etc. aren't worth funding because rich people get those benefits, too.  If you agree with that position, please expand on those thoughts.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Do you care to engage in actual discussion?  Pete seems to be taking a position that Social Security, Medicare, public schools, etc. aren't worth funding because rich people get those benefits, too.  If you agree with that position, please expand on those thoughts.

 

I don't think he's saying any of what you're saying he is.  You keep misrepresenting his positions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Do you care to engage in actual discussion?  Pete seems to be taking a position that Social Security, Medicare, public schools, etc. aren't worth funding because rich people get those benefits, too.  If you agree with that position, please expand on those thoughts.

 

Yeah I think you're extrapolating a statement to its most extreme ends... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, X said:

I don't think he's saying any of what you're saying he is.  You keep misrepresenting his positions. 

 

There's so many things wrong with it, I picked just one.  It's not a misrepresentation - he thinks a universal public benefit is bad because rich people's kids would also get that benefit.

 

1) He's using a GOP talking point. He has said we shouldn't do that.

2) It's Democratic in-fighting - something he has said on the debate stages turns voters off.

3) The proposals he's attacking are free college for everyone. How is extrapolating that to other universal rights misrepresentating what he's saying?

4) Does he not understand who will disproportionally pay for those plans? The rich.  "Let's not go down a path where even millionaire's children get free college" despite, you know, those parents paying for everyone else's kids.  Maybe he doesn't understand how progressive taxation works?

5) Mega rich families don't send their kids to public schools. They send them to private schools.

6) Even if they did get a public school education, that's a good thing! 

7) Again, this is how universal rights work. Why is he stopping at universities? Why not ban the funding of public high schools because some rich kids might go there?

8. The people who benefit most from his round-about plan are rich people, who are largely funding his campaign. Coincidence?

9 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Yeah I think you're extrapolating a statement to its most extreme ends... 

 

I'm told and I assume he's principled, so yes.  "We shouldn't have universal public benefits because rich people might use them" is not a reasonable position, imo.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Do you care to engage in actual discussion?  Pete seems to be taking a position that Social Security, Medicare, public schools, etc. aren't worth funding because rich people get those benefits, too.  If you agree with that position, please expand on those thoughts.

 

wait a second, rich people aren't allowed to participate in social security and Medicare, I thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2019 at 12:53 PM, YABO713 said:

 

Bernie does well with blue collar voters for the same reason Trump does. Over-simplistic answers to wildly complex problems. 

 

This. This is it in a nutshell.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

1) He's using a GOP talking point. He has said we shouldn't do that.

2) It's Democratic in-fighting - something he has said on the debate stages turns voters off.

3) The proposals he's attacking are free college for everyone. How is extrapolating that to other universal rights misrepresentating what he's saying?

4) Does he not understand who will disproportionally pay for those plans? The rich.  "Let's not go down a path where even millionaire's children get free college" despite, you know, those parents paying for everyone else's kids.  Maybe he doesn't understand how progressive taxation works?

5) Mega rich families don't send their kids to public schools. They send them to private schools.

6) Even if they did get a public school education, that's a good thing! 

7) Again, this is how universal rights work. Why is he stopping at universities? Why not ban the funding of public high schools because some rich kids might go there?

8. The people who benefit most from his round-about plan are rich people, who are largely funding his campaign. Coincidence?

 

I'm told and I assume he's principled, so yes.  "We shouldn't have universal public benefits because rich people might use them" is not a reasonable position, imo.

 

This is twisted... my points to win the era (Pete talk!):

 

1.  It's not a GOP talking point to give anyone free college. Their talking point is NO free college.

 

2.  If you look through the receipts, Pete didn't start the fight. AOC did (side point - why is she even commenting on this race, and more importantly, why does anyone care? Don't get me wrong, I like her, but from her position all that commenting on this race can do is make herself look bad until a nominee is picked).

 

3.  The other rights are either required by law (like K-12 education) or not really rights (like Social Security... idk your age but if you're a Millennial like me good luck waiting for it).

 

4.  His plan will cover, what, 80% of people? TBH This is one proposal where I like his thought process on it better than Bernie but disagree with both that it needs to exist.

 

What should be done IMO is free community college for all, no restrictions, and no additional subsidies for any college education that is not open enrollment (Wright State, Cleveland State, Wayne State, etc.). Otherwise we are subsidizing kids to go to top colleges that charge top dollar for being top colleges, it's a waste of taxpayer money. I like the idea of free college generally speaking, but it has to be for colleges that offer equal opportunity to all of their students, don't put in barriers to entry, and not cover room/board/extra expenses.

 

5.  Yes... don't see what this effects, exactly.

 

6.  Sure, why not.

 

7.  That's batsh*t crazy, man (or whatever gender you identify with, I can't see behind your screen lol)

 

8.  Point #4 directly contradicts Point #8.

 

Edited by SWOH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2019 at 2:01 PM, YABO713 said:

 

With all due respect - most voters know what they want but have no idea what they need. Call it elitist, call it whatever, but that's why populist candidates are so dangerous

So, taking Obamacare for instance, are you saying that the Heritage Foundation written ACA bill, based on a Republican state level policy, watered down by a hundred GOP amendments, had the voter's best interests in mind? Or was it written to benefit the health insurance industry? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you said "with all due respect", but I'm not sure you respected my stated wants and needs. I want single-payer healthcare, free or nearly free at the point of service, like every other developed country in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

AOC endorsed Sanders. And why wouldn't she comment on the race? The president helps set the congressional agenda. It affects her in a big way.

 

Same reason Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Sherrod Brown, etc. are not commenting on candidates in the race directly... out of respect for the candidates to run their own campaigns and let the best one win.

 

AOC has a big platform and done well with it, power to her for getting it done. But IF she really wants to influence Pete, and not just start a food fight, then she should have a meeting with Pete and not pointlessly troll him on Twitter. Hiding behind a screen is immature.

Edited by SWOH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

Hiding behind a screen lmao. It's not like she's anonymous. Anything she says on Twitter she would say to his face.

 

The question is has she though? Has she actually met with Pete?

Officially, from what I can tell, no. Maybe there has been an off the record meeting. If not, the Twitter attack is a bit cowardly for someone with her platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...