Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[ComradeKayAdams]

12 hours ago, KRC said:

 

IMO, this is where conservatives (not Republicans) differ with liberals (not Democrats). Liberals want to see the government take control of this issue. Conservatives want to see the private sector take control. Arguments can be made on both sides. However, my personal opinion is that it should be handled in the private sector. The government has proven that they are incapable of being efficient with my money. There is not one single program that is efficiently run. Money just goes down a black hole. Granted, there are private companies and charities that are the same, but I have a choice on where I donate my money. I can see the ineffective charities that are bloated with executive pay and other bureaucratic nonsense and can funnel my money where it would do the most good.

 

If we were to have a government solution, it should be pushed to the closest government to the actual problem. Therefore, local governments should be responsible for taking care of local residents. By the time the fed has taken their cut to pay for the bureaucracy, then the state takes their cut to pay for the bureaucracy, there is not much left on the local level to actually implement it. Keep it local and let the locals determine where the money is needed the most.

 

Just my $0.02.

 

Can I have it? I'm a Bernie-loving freeloader.

 

So the privatized social welfare solution is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. It made sense back then when you had a much smaller, more static, and less complex society with a vibrant Christian culture of private charity and strong grassroots political structures. But in the year 2020, it no longer makes sense to not have some sort of federal government-mandated social safety net. Government waste and corruption is always a problem, so we need to be more vigilant in policing these abuses. But this is better than having to rely on the Mike Bloombergs of the nation to bless the rest of us with their wellsprings of generosity.

 

Speaking of Mike Bloomberg: he is worth about $65 billion. How much of that is going toward job creation? How much of that is he and his family even capable of spending in multiple lifetimes? The $2 billion that Bloomberg is using for his narcissism-driven presidential campaign could have been better spent on dramatically mitigating the homeless crisis in California, for example. As Bernie mentioned in the Nevada debate, people like Mike Bloomberg need to understand that they didn’t earn their money in a vacuum. Lots of other people worked very hard too to help him achieve what he did, and his company functions within a framework of an entire civilization that he did not singlehandedly generate. Paying taxes is part of the social contract we all sign up for in exchange for living in a civilization. The only question is how much taxation is enough? How much is too much? The political process and the first amendment can help us reach a specific answer, but the point is that the working class and Millenials and minorities are giving the country strong hints right now that the current Reaganomics trajectory isn’t working for them. Let’s try to avoid future Robespierres and guillotines and engage in a constructive dialogue with them, no?

 

Comments on the Dem Primaries: Of the 19 states and US territories decided by Super Tuesday, it’s looking like 9 will go to Bernie, Minnesota will be a close one between Amy and Bernie, Iowa was essentially a tie between Pete and Bernie, 7 states (Texas, NC, VA, Tenn, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and SC) will be between Bernie and Biden with Bloomberg acting as a third-place spoiler, and Alabama will be the only contest where Bernie is expected to get blown out (but still finishing second). Those establishment Democrats who want to see the nomination stolen from Bernie at the July convention are going to have a VERY difficult time making that case after Super Tuesday. Five more days!

[ComradeKayAdams]

8 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

What you're discussing, in my mind, is the single biggest difference between Conservatives and Liberals; self-accountability vs. victimhood.

 

 

The left has done an amazing job pushing entitlement. This frustrates people like myself who came up from being dealt a bad hand. A lot of people helped me along my path, but they wouldn't have helped if they didn't realize I was trying to change my trajectory.

 

It makes me crazy listening to lazy, entitled chuckleheads insist health care is a right, or that it's not their fault they borrowed a $150K to get a useless degree. There is simply NO excuse in this country for not carving out a successful life for yourself. It doesn't matter what hole you fell down, virtually everyone can better their lives by turning their back on victimhood, turning their back on the idea that the rich should cover their meal ticket, and ask what resources are available to them to build a career.

 

Unfortunately, the left figured out the way to stay in power: control the school curriculum. They did it, and here we are...with a communist about to run for president.

 

Good personal story and a quintessential American one, but as you said yourself, you needed a lot of people to help you along the way. What about the people who are telling us that they're not finding sufficient help? What percentage of these people are too lazy? Entitled? Hopelessly incompetent with their personal lives? Too immersed in victimhood? Indoctrinated in the left-wing school system? I don't think these kinds of blanket statements and accusations are productive if there is a genuine interest in halting the rapid rise of the progressive left-wing.

 

I'll reiterate what I've said before somewhere in this monstrously large thread. There are two central themes behind the Bernie Sanders political movement of the post-Great Recession era (2008-now): 

 

1. The corporate elite have corrupted America's political, government, economic, military, and media institutions to a now completely intolerable level.

2. Absolute wage growth is not keeping pace with the cost of living and health care and post-secondary education.

 

The centrist Democrats since the 1990's and the Republicans since the 1980's have either done a terrible job addressing these issues or have done a terrible job communicating their thoughts and solutions to the working class, Millenials, and minorities of this country.

[B-Man]

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[Nanker]

The USA is a remarkable Western country in that it has never had a viable Socialist party. When - not if - Bernie gets screwed again, I think that will change. The far leftist loonies will splinter off into the American Socialist party. 
 

The young proponents of Socialism will join in and deny the Democrat party the “feeder” stream of new voters to their ranks. The old Dem party will shrink and suffer. Many of the moderate blue collar Dems are already in the Republican tent. 
 

Historians may look back on Trump as the greatest iconoclast in the history of the world. He defeated the Bush Family machine, the Clinton family machine, the Deep State machine, and split the Democrat party in two.
 

All this was/will be accomplished by him simply challenging us all to Make America Great Again. It was genius. The Dems had no answer other than to soil their pantaloons in public. 

[KRC]

10 hours ago, KayAdams said:

 

Can I have it? I'm a Bernie-loving freeloader.

 

So the privatized social welfare solution is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. It made sense back then when you had a much smaller, more static, and less complex society with a vibrant Christian culture of private charity and strong grassroots political structures. But in the year 2020, it no longer makes sense to not have some sort of federal government-mandated social safety net. Government waste and corruption is always a problem, so we need to be more vigilant in policing these abuses. But this is better than having to rely on the Mike Bloombergs of the nation to bless the rest of us with their wellsprings of generosity.

 

Speaking of Mike Bloomberg: he is worth about $65 billion. How much of that is going toward job creation? How much of that is he and his family even capable of spending in multiple lifetimes? The $2 billion that Bloomberg is using for his narcissism-driven presidential campaign could have been better spent on dramatically mitigating the homeless crisis in California, for example. As Bernie mentioned in the Nevada debate, people like Mike Bloomberg need to understand that they didn’t earn their money in a vacuum. Lots of other people worked very hard too to help him achieve what he did, and his company functions within a framework of an entire civilization that he did not singlehandedly generate. Paying taxes is part of the social contract we all sign up for in exchange for living in a civilization. The only question is how much taxation is enough? How much is too much? The political process and the first amendment can help us reach a specific answer, but the point is that the working class and Millenials and minorities are giving the country strong hints right now that the current Reaganomics trajectory isn’t working for them. Let’s try to avoid future Robespierres and guillotines and engage in a constructive dialogue with them, no?

 

Comments on the Dem Primaries: Of the 19 states and US territories decided by Super Tuesday, it’s looking like 9 will go to Bernie, Minnesota will be a close one between Amy and Bernie, Iowa was essentially a tie between Pete and Bernie, 7 states (Texas, NC, VA, Tenn, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and SC) will be between Bernie and Biden with Bloomberg acting as a third-place spoiler, and Alabama will be the only contest where Bernie is expected to get blown out (but still finishing second). Those establishment Democrats who want to see the nomination stolen from Bernie at the July convention are going to have a VERY difficult time making that case after Super Tuesday. Five more days!

 

Thank you for the detailed response. Here are my thoughts:

-As far as private versus public assistance, I see no reason why private cannot still work on a larger scale than the founding fathers. We need to look at who is getting assistance, why they are getting assistance, and how long they need the assistance. I think you and I both can agree (I may be wrong, so correct me please), there are people who definitely need the assistance and those who are just freeloaders because it is monetarily more beneficial to sit on your ass and get government assistance than it is to work for a living. To me, we should not be funding the latter, regardless of whether it is public or private. Money should go to those who are truly in need. Full stop.

-The argument can be made that Bloomberg spending billions on political races is actually a benefit to those in need, more than giving a donation. If he feels that spending that money to get the right candidates in office will have a better long-term effect than a single donation of a bunch of money, that is his choice. They can put policies and programs in place that will have lasting impacts. Whether right or wrong, he is doing what he feels is best with the money he earned. It is not up to the government to determine how to spend his money. It is up to him. Again, the arguments can be made on both sides on electing people to push the policies he favors versus sending a bunch of money to the government or to private charities, and which is more beneficial long-term.

-Again on Bloomberg: Yes, other people helped him earn his money (his employees) and they were compensated to do so. If they felt they deserved more, they should have asked for a raise or gone elsewhere. People are paid what they are worth and what they are willing to accept (which is why I am against price floors in the form of minimum wage). If you don't like it, you are not entitled to the job you have. If you are valuable to the company, they will compensate you. If they do not compensate you accordingly, you will be valuable to another company who would be happy to have you. If you have little or no marketable skills, you are not going to be paid very much.

-No, you can't have my $0.02, you freeloader. ?

[RochesterRob]

12 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

The democrats have positioned themselves in a lose/lose situation. Bernie can't beat Trump and his candidacy will hurt the down vote. If the dems find a way to squeeze him out then they'll lose a lot of his base also hurting the down vote and losing to Trump. They have done this to themselves by their TDS and general hysteria over anything Trump. All they had to do was to give a good faith effort to solve problems with the Republicans and act like adults by putting country before party. They can't do it though. Instead they allow the far left of their party to split them apart to the extent that they can't nominate a candidate that is generally acceptable to their entire party and won't be able to beat Trump with anyone they nominate.

  It all goes back to Hillary and the Democrats know it.  Bernie should have never been allowed to run in the Democratic Party.  Hillary needed a straw man opponent so Sanders was allowed to run in their party.  Bernie did not crash the doors in but had the door held open for him.  The fact that Hillary has not been outright banished including being told that she is not some sort of party spokesperson is very telling of her power in the Democratic Party as of today.

[Just Joshin']

13 hours ago, KayAdams said:

 

Speaking of Mike Bloomberg: he is worth about $65 billion. How much of that is going toward job creation? How much of that is he and his family even capable of spending in multiple lifetimes? The $2 billion that Bloomberg is using for his narcissism-driven presidential campaign could have been better spent on dramatically mitigating the homeless crisis in California, for example.

Many well off people give a significant amount of money to various causes.

 

Why do you feel the need to tell him how to spend his money?  I do not feel the need to tell you how to spend yours.  The problem gets bigger when it spills over to other actions:  If there is M4A, we will be told how to eat, exercise and why for the greater good, we will not get treatment. 

 

Lead by example - make a fortune and spend it on the causes you find worthy.  Bernie does not lead by example - he has three houses and is a multi-millionaire.  IIRC, he also under gives to charity more than the average person.  But it is alright for him but not others.  Why?

[mead107]

Best I can find is about 20,000 work for Bloomberg 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

No shame..........

 

From APNews

MIKE BLOOMBERG: “There’s nobody here to figure out what the hell we should be doing. And he’s defunded — he’s defunded Centers for Disease Control, CDC, so we don’t have the organization we need. This is a very serious thing.” — debate Tuesday night.

 

JOE BIDEN, comparing the Obama-Biden administration with now: “We increased the budget of the CDC. We increased the NIH budget. … He’s wiped all that out. … He cut the funding for the entire effort.”

 

THE FACTS: They’re both wrong to say the agencies have seen their money cut. Bloomberg is repeating the false allegation in a new ad that states the U.S. is unprepared for the virus because of “reckless cuts” to the CDC. Trump’s budgets have proposed cuts to public health, only to be overruled by Congress, where there’s strong bipartisan support for agencies such as the CDC and NIH. Instead, financing has increased.

They probably both know they’re WRONG.

 

 

It’s the Harry Reid motto: Well, it worked, didn’t it?

 

 

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

15 hours ago, KayAdams said:

What about the people who are telling us that they're not finding sufficient help?

 

I would drill deeper into those who say they're not finding sufficient help to assess what steps they did take and what barriers they ran into. Most success comes down to elimination of objections.

 

Its easy to say "There just wasn't enough help," but it has been my experience (through conducting job interviews, etc.) that many of those barriers are personal preferences and expectations. An extreme fictional example, to be sure, but to make the point; Cousin Eddie in Christmas Vacation -- unemployed for six years because he's "holding out for a management position." I can't tell you the number of applicants who were barely qualified for a job paying XX, but passed the job because they kept insisting they had to make "XXXX" to pay their bills.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

The people who helped me did so, in large part, by showing me other options. I wanted to be a writer, but I had no money. So they helped me see what I had to do to pay my way through college, and they explained to me that I was never too good to take a job that paid. They helped me get work, and I was introduced to the concept of needs vs wants. I worked as a dishwasher, busboy, waiter, and bartender. I spent college summers traveling the NE state fair circuit with a dude who made pulled pork sandwiches in a tiny trailer while sleeping five to a nasty hotel room. I did construction and painting and at one point was just banging on people's doors to see if I could do any odd jobs. 

 

So when someone tells me "there just wasn't enough help," I drill down and point them to the countless programs at all the local community colleges that will teach them a trade...many times for free, if they're eligible for interning.  There are plenty of options for people willing to learn and do the work, even if it's not what you want, or you consider it beneath you.

Edited February 28, 2020 by IDBillzFan

[B-Man]

 

 

 

.

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I would drill deeper into those who say they're not finding sufficient help to assess what steps they did take and what barriers they ran into. Most success comes down to elimination of objections.

 

Its easy to say "There just wasn't enough help," but it has been my experience (through conducting job interviews, etc.) that many of those barriers are personal preferences and expectations. An extreme fictional example, to be sure, but to make the point; Cousin Eddie in Christmas Vacation -- unemployed for six years because he's "holding out for a management position." I can't tell you the number of applicants who were barely qualified for a job paying XX, but passed the job because they kept insisting they had to make "XXXX" to pay their bills.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

The people who helped me did so, in large part, by showing me other options. I wanted to be a writer, but I had no money. So they helped me see what I had to do to pay my way through college, and they explained to me that I was never too good to take a job that paid. They helped me get work, and I was introduced to the concept of needs vs wants. I worked as a dishwasher, busboy, waiter, and bartender. I spent college summers traveling the NE state fair circuit with a dude who made pulled pork sandwiches in a tiny trailer while sleeping five to a nasty hotel room. I did construction and painting and at one point was just banging on people's doors to see if I could do any odd jobs. 

 

So when someone tells me "there just wasn't enough help," I drill down and point them to the countless programs at all the local community colleges that will teach them a trade...many times for free, if they're eligible for interning.  There are plenty of options for people willing to learn and do the work, even if it's not what you want, or you consider it beneath you.

This is an excellent post.

[3rdnlng]

33 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I would drill deeper into those who say they're not finding sufficient help to assess what steps they did take and what barriers they ran into. Most success comes down to elimination of objections.

 

Its easy to say "There just wasn't enough help," but it has been my experience (through conducting job interviews, etc.) that many of those barriers are personal preferences and expectations. An extreme fictional example, to be sure, but to make the point; Cousin Eddie in Christmas Vacation -- unemployed for six years because he's "holding out for a management position." I can't tell you the number of applicants who were barely qualified for a job paying XX, but passed the job because they kept insisting they had to make "XXXX" to pay their bills.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

The people who helped me did so, in large part, by showing me other options. I wanted to be a writer, but I had no money. So they helped me see what I had to do to pay my way through college, and they explained to me that I was never too good to take a job that paid. They helped me get work, and I was introduced to the concept of needs vs wants. I worked as a dishwasher, busboy, waiter, and bartender. I spent college summers traveling the NE state fair circuit with a dude who made pulled pork sandwiches in a tiny trailer while sleeping five to a nasty hotel room. I did construction and painting and at one point was just banging on people's doors to see if I could do any odd jobs. 

 

So when someone tells me "there just wasn't enough help," I drill down and point them to the countless programs at all the local community colleges that will teach them a trade...many times for free, if they're eligible for interning.  There are plenty of options for people willing to learn and do the work, even if it's not what you want, or you consider it beneath you.

I suspect the help you got along the way had something to do with the people doing the help seeing something in you that made you worth helping. Good post.

[Wacka]

The Dem convention is going to resemble  tue 68 convention.  San Rather is still around . Maybe  they can strap a box the size of an air conditioner on his back  and  report from the floor and get roughed up.

 

[Hedge]

[B-Man]

 

[B-Man]

 

There have been many great speakers at CPAC so far, but the one reaching the highest in energy and intensity was Kimberly Guilfoyle, who had the crowd fired up from the get-go.

 

Guilfoyle spent some time naming off the accomplishments of President Donald Trump and comparing them to the failures of the Democrat party who, as Guilfoyle pointed out, have nothing to offer America except for more trouble.

In just 30 seconds, Guilfoyle pointed out exactly what the left has to offer America and it’s nothing good.

“Because that skyrocketing taxes, open borders to child and sex traffickers, sanctuary cities and states that provide a safe haven for criminals, more crime and deadly drugs, stagnant wages and less job opportunities, and the destruction of America’s healthcare system. That is the Democrat’s America but that is not our America,” said Guilfoyle to cheers and applause.

 

 

Guilfoyle perfectly sums up the left here. The left hasn’t really pushed much of anything to help America prosper and has instead focused on making promises of free stuff that they can’t keep, identity politics that they actually don’t support, and putting America into positions that will only hurt it, such as opening up the borders and paying for immigrants that pay nothing in return.

 

Their largest selling point, however, has been the fact that it’s the party that is opposing Trump, which isn’t a great selling point seeing as how Trump is responsible for America’s growth and prosperity. As Trump continues to handle national and international affairs to the benefit of the country, being the party that is opposed to Trump while having nothing good to offer in conjunction is only going to destroy their chances in 2020.

 

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/02/28/cpac-kimberly-guilfoyle-shows-america-every-reason-not-to-vote-for-democrats-in-just-30-seconds/

 

.

[reddogblitz]

9 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

There have been many great speakers at CPAC so far, but the one reaching the highest in energy and intensity was Kimberly Guilfoyle, who had the crowd fired up from the get-go.

 

Guilfoyle spent some time naming off the accomplishments of President Donald Trump and comparing them to the failures of the Democrat party who, as Guilfoyle pointed out, have nothing to offer America except for more trouble.

In just 30 seconds, Guilfoyle pointed out exactly what the left has to offer America and it’s nothing good.

“Because that skyrocketing taxes, open borders to child and sex traffickers, sanctuary cities and states that provide a safe haven for criminals, more crime and deadly drugs, stagnant wages and less job opportunities, and the destruction of America’s healthcare system. That is the Democrat’s America but that is not our America,” said Guilfoyle to cheers and applause.

 

 

Guilfoyle perfectly sums up the left here. The left hasn’t really pushed much of anything to help America prosper and has instead focused on making promises of free stuff that they can’t keep, identity politics that they actually don’t support, and putting America into positions that will only hurt it, such as opening up the borders and paying for immigrants that pay nothing in return.

 

Their largest selling point, however, has been the fact that it’s the party that is opposing Trump, which isn’t a great selling point seeing as how Trump is responsible for America’s growth and prosperity. As Trump continues to handle national and international affairs to the benefit of the country, being the party that is opposed to Trump while having nothing good to offer in conjunction is only going to destroy their chances in 2020.

 

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/02/28/cpac-kimberly-guilfoyle-shows-america-every-reason-not-to-vote-for-democrats-in-just-30-seconds/

 

.

 

I keep wishing Trump would hire her for Press Secretary.  She'd be great in those press conferences.