We have all been debating the Impeachment process, as well as the trial for some time now. It's almost over, and the outcome has disappointed some. deeply. Would it be wise to perhaps look forward to the 2020 election? The Democrats have a diverse line-up all with their eye on the prize, the Presidency Of The United States.
My question, do you have a favorite, a candidate or two that you can stand behind. vote for? Perhaps you are not ready to choose that candidate and hope to hear more from all the candidates in regard to their individual agendas. I hope you will take the time to add your comment and share your opinion on the line-up of the 2020 candidates for the Presidency.
Warren has been my choice but she has been getting kind of wonky lately and I am nervous as to her prospects. But, I could go with Bernie Sanders without having lost much ground.
As of right now, none of them. My choice was scuttled by Hitlery (Hillary) and her lies. Sanders is a socialist; Warren is the female Sanders. Creepy Joe is Obama 0.5; Yang makes Sanders seem like a capitalist. Steyer is just another guy trying to buy the White House (we already have that), Buttergig has race issues (according to Twitter he's racist), and don't know that the other woman is... Karen? Bloomberg (not pictured) is the worst kind of politician; I don't trust someone not willing to play by the rules of the party he plans on leading.
"Yang makes Sanders seem like a capitalist. "
You may not realize that under Yang's freedom dividend everyone gets the grand a month and this cash in in lieu of things like SNAP. That seems less socialistic than what we have under Trump. I understand Yang has other proposals that may give you this impression, but this is about the only think many people know of Yang.
Also "socialism, the core principle is the nationalization of the means of production" I don't see socialism with the Freedom Dividend.
The "Freedom Dividend" is his universal income paid to everyone not just as a replacement for SNAP.
Exactly..I never stated it was "just as a replacement for SNAP." In fact, I think you simply restated what I wrote. Am I missing something here?
You seem knowledgeable about this plan - can you explain why Yang thinks it will expand the economy by 12% (!), or increase the labor force by 4 million people, all by taking money from one person (so they can no longer spend it) and giving to someone else (so they can spend it instead)?
This baffles me; why spending by someone that didn't earn the wealth as opposed to the same spending by someone that DID earn in can produce any change at all, let alone the figures Yang thinks will happen. Or is he going to just print it out and then fight the tremendous inflation that results? Or does he figure on simply cancelling SS checks as a start of the program?
SS is the third rail of politics, and 1000 a month would be a pay cut for millions of voting seniors.
How is taking it from one person who "earned" it and giving it to another if EVERYONE is getting the grand and the funds come from a VAT tax? Also, I think it's basic economics to understand that working people spend money more than people who gain capital and sit on it. When middle class people actually have spending money, they spend it. This helps create jobs. The money now circulates. He thinks it will increase the labor force, in part, because of what I just described, and also through things such as freeing up more people to work instead of caring for children.
There are UBI experiments that have been done and are going on right now. They have generally good results. No, not cancelling SS or disability, but yes, cancelling SNAP and cutting some HUD programs (I think on the HUD.)
We have to get the funds out of the capital gains and into the hands of people that spend it in our communities if we want this economy to work for more working Americans.
Much of this you can Google yourself if you really want to know. We have to not be scared of thinking and progressing. It's much easier to simply think along the lines of capitalist vs socialists though.
Hey Dan..have you looked into this anymore? It seems you were misinformed about the Freedom Dividend, and I hate to see that. I gather that you aren't a big fan of government and "plan" unless maybe it involves keeping Medicare funded, or a wall, but???
I've had this discussion before (not with you) and completely fail to understand the thinking that people with wealth do not contribute to the economy.
First, the rich aren't going to spend, according to you, so will not contribute to a VAT tax. That leaves the middle class and poor paying for the thousands that go to the rich.
But above and beyond that, rich people don't get rich by sticking their wealth under the mattress; it is invested. Investment which is necessary to create jobs, in fact.
On top of that, the rich DO spend money, and far more than the poor do. Yachts and jets don't come cheap, and neither to penthouse apartments or servants.
There is another HUGE problem with the problem as well. Other (European) countries have discussed this and come to the conclusion that giving money to everyone simply for existing in the country is probably the biggest magnet possible to draw immigration from groups that have little to nothing to contribute to the country.
You do not create wealth by taking from one to give to another. This scheme is nothing but another effort to spread the wealth from those that earned it to those that did not.
Here is a thread for you hard sun.
Andrew Yang's Freedom Dividend
You may not realize that under Yang's freedom dividend everyone gets the grand a month and this cash in in lieu of things like SNAP. That seems less socialistic than what we have under Trump. I understand Yang has other proposals that may give you this impression, but this is about the only think many people know of Yang.[/color]
This above is what you posted see the part in red.
Here is my full quote:
"You may not realize that under Yang's freedom dividend everyone gets the grand a month and this cash in in lieu of things like SNAP. "
You are missing something here. We said the exact same thing, but you are trying to state I said it is JUST a replacement for SNAP, which is very far from the truth. Just because some people would get the dividend in lieu of of SNAP, it doesn't mean others don't get the dividend. As I clearly pointed out by stating "everyone gets the grand." Thanks for the point of agreement though. It was a simple misunderstanding. I'm getting back to thinking now.
The people want a change and I believe Bernie has the vision to lead that. Medicare for All will save lives. Warren is my second choice.
Will the Dems cheat him again?
Hey, horse, is this you? Nice to see you back. Your association with Vermont was familiar.
Do you think so? It would be nice to have him back. As consistent as he was in his opinions, he wasn't outrageous.
Yes, the "outrageous" part was subjective. But the thought of 'Jake' came to mind, so maybe it would be close to objective.
What does that have to do with the Dems stealing the nomination for Hillary back in 2016?
Hi, Virginia, nice to hear a fresh voice advocating a return to decency and sanity in America.
cough, cough . . .Sorry, I swallowed wrong. It was that 'Bernie is sanity' part that did it. ;-)
How about Buttigieg Cred? Could you support him? And I don't mean as an 'anybody but' candidate?
Right now, GA, at this time I would take Lucifer, himself, over Trump or any Republican.
My preference is still with Sanders or Warren, but I least prefer Bloomberg or Biden.
If Buttigieg is the nominee, I will support him.
Good. Even though you couldn't pass-up the Trump criticism, I am glad to see you could support Buttigieg on merit alone.
I am not in his camp, and am not promoting him, but the guy impresses me. If I had only that choice I could support him. I cannot support Warren or Sanders.
The criticism is more directed to the entire GOP establishment rather than just picking on Trump this time. In these times, there really isn't daylight between Trump and the GOP rank and file.
I am not so much for Buttigieg as I am against Trump and Republicans. I don't find the man any more guilty of racial offense as what is spr ad by the press nor insensitivity than that of the average white guy his age.
I am suspicious of his relative youth and inexperience. Its tough to attack the dangerously entrenched and powerful rightwing interests as a newbie in this current political climate.
Only Sanders and Warren really moves the ball down the court for me.
Bernie Sanders is by far my first choice. In a distant second category I'd put Warren-Yang-Steyer, and in the no thank you category I'd put Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg.
Well damn! You must be one of those red commie socialist leeches.
Caveat: Come on Eastward, do I really need to tell you that was a joke?
My impression is that Buttigieg's policies are next-door neighbors to Sanders and Warren. I am surprised that you put him in the same category as Biden. And I can't imagine how you would group him with Bloomberg.
Haha. Interesting as I just posted a response to you in the State of the Union thread from Justin Amash criticizing Trump on the issue of socialism. Very timely, GA!
At first glance, I think it's fair to look at Buttigieg's policies as next-door neighbors to Sanders and Warren. There are more issues they fall on the same basic pro/con side of https://2020election.procon.org/view.so … -chart.php
The big difference for me comes in how they get their funding (I'm a big fan of Sanders going for small donations from the general public as opposed to courting millionaires and billionaires in wine caves--that's where I start to lump Pete with Bloomberg). Even on the pros they are both committed to, I find Sanders to have a deeper depth of commitment (not to mention a much longer track record with receipts to prove his dedication to the issues). After all this chaos in Iowa, with the reporting issues coming from an app company his campaign made payments to for other services, and with him announcing his victory with only 62% of districts reporting, he slid even further down my list. https://www.politifact.com/article/2020 … a-caucuse/
I try to base 99.9% of my decision on the facts, but in my gut, I have to admit that I just trust Sanders the most.
I agree that Sanders has the history to prove his authenticity. I don't think anyone would question his integrity. I wouldn't. But it is the fact that I can be sure Sanders is what he portrays himself to be that makes me unable to support him. We have differences that are as different as night and day.
I have a favorite, but it isn't Biden, Bernie or Warren. Bernie is probably going to get it unless the Dems can figure out how to bump him out again.
Trump will be losing some votes if Bernie gets the nomination - we'll see how many. Remember all those peeps who voted for Trump just to spite the Dems cuz they interfered with him becoming the nominee last time? You can bet that Trump hasn't convinced those people that his idea of healthcare is better than Bernie's 100% free everything 'socialist' agenda.
Those Trump voters have no-doubt enjoyed watching the chaos that has resulted in Washington, our country and the world because of their spite-filled votes last time around - but, they ARE still diehard Bernie supporters. We have alot of them where I'm from.
Have you ever heard an interview with just one of his supporters? They are an intense, unified group with a vision. If there is anyone for the GOP to be afraid of, its Bernie. And they should be. He almost won against Hillary; and that entire generation that he speaks to - has just gone through years of being spit on by this administration (much more from its supporters); and - seriously, they don't even watch TV! Some of them haven't for YEARS! They are hardcore - as hardcore as a true Trumpster.
As for me, I'll be watching and paying attention - and then I will vote for whomever the most popular anti-Trump candidate is. For no other reason than I am sick of all the fighting - not just all the immature, irresponsible, childish bullying that goes on among our politicians; but I'm tired of getting on and off the bus in the midst of people yelling and arguing; bad attitudes in checkout lines; people just walking around with angry looks on their faces - and the constant back and forth: what Fox said, what CNN said...
You're ALL just a bunch of tools they are EACH using in an EQUAL way to make the most money off of their chosen type of audience.
There were no 'libtards' or right-wing extremists until someone created a label and people started flocking to one or the other, choosing based on whatever was in their heads.
And now that the various large media corporations have large audiences to compete against each other - MONEY, MONEY, MONEY for ALL sides! It could just as well be a contact sport. How much money does the Superbowl make?
Neither 'side' actually cares who wins, really - cuz there isn't really a 'side' (unless you want to count the shadow government that stages all this bs). Wake up! You're constantly being manipulated, but you can't see it - cuz you're all too busy celebrating or agonizing over the latest inappropriate blurb or action from potus.
What has been sacrificed in this country JUST so your stomach can do flips and laugh out loud every time Trump kicks someone in the teeth on Twitter? You can't pick and choose what you are and are not responsible for if you voted for him - you have a part in everything he says and does, no picking and choosing to keep yourself from feeling guilty.
Things don't work that way - what comes around goes around. You reap what you sow, blah, blah, blah...
If we get Bernie next year, it will be ALL the fault of the people who voted for Trump in 2016. And really, when you think about it... That is probably the ONLY WAY Bernie would be able to get that office: if enough people who don't support his agenda HAVE to vote for him anyway in order to get the other guy out.
Bernie could never have won potus in a 'normal' public election - which is why Dems went so far out of their way to keep him from becoming the nominee last time; and it is why you are starting to hear worry-talk from other Dems about the risk liberal candidates like Bernie and Warren bring this time around - if they get the nomination.
Trumps views are not much outside normal GOP policies (though he's got a lot of #nevertrumpsters who don't like him) - but Bernie sticks to the furthermost outside 'liberal' rim of the Dem party. Basically, he's trying to hijack a party that he doesn't even belong in because he can't win under his own party's banner. Its got to be one of the two nationally-approved organizations, or no dice.
In other words, the fact that Bernie is a directly-opposing Trump force - instead of a nice, level-headed middle ground politician - is really the only risk. But, its a big one. WILL people vote for Bernie just to get rid of Trump - despite his extremist left views?
I think Avenatti represents todays liberals best.
I have several candidates I would find perfectly acceptable, most notably Warren, Sanders, Klobuchar, Yang, Buttiegieg, and Steyer. I will not vote for Biden or Bloomberg.
My choice is anyone but the criminal OJ Trump.
Yang and Buttigieg are my favorites, though, in November I'll vote for anyone who can make an attempt at uniting the nation. That disqualifies one guy.
I really like Yang. I could possibly vote for Yang.
But it appears Bloomberg has bought the DNC so we'll have to wait and hear from the DNC who Bloomberg will allow to be chosen to run in the general election.
I wonder how did the caucus go? How much "free" stuff did they promise?
JK, I don't care.
Buttigieg Wins(?) Iowa Caucus
The question mark notes that this may still be a question, but . . .
I just watched his *victory* speech. I found it impressive.
I don't like a lot of this man's policies. I would not vote for him if my vote was based on policies. But I like this guy. For some undecided reason, he just reeks of integrity and nice-guyness.
As a side note: CNN is already giving Last Rites to Biden.
I didn't think the caucus was over yet, Gus?
Damn Randy, pay attention. I included a question mark and spoke to why.
Do I need to double-up on martinis to catch-up?
Sure, I'm running in and out today and not paying proper attention. I do believe I have oldtimers disease.
Plus the adult beverages....
I didn't know you were a Bernie fan, Joey.
He's merely a fan of anything he thinks will further the agenda of his Russian propagandists. He's a tool. The only question is whether he's a willing tool or just a tool.
These forums are such a hoot...….
But on a more serious note, I really don't have a favorite regarding the Democratic presidential lineups.
Hey, Randy, I don't have all the fancy memes, but a mind picture has Trump reminding me of the character "Biff Tannen" from the "Back to the Future" trilogy of film. We need to go back and correct the time line, so that he may be eradicated from existence
Check it out sometime and you can see the resemblance.
With the Iowa results of Mayor Pete and Bernie sharing the lead, Bernie is seeking to differentiate himself by pointing out Buttiegieg's many donations from the billionaire class. Bernie, of course, rejects these types of funds and relies on small donations from many individuals
Should we care where a candidate gets his money?
Panther, Bernie's differentiation is a valid one. How can you really expect MayorPete to advocate for the little guy, while he accepts donations from millionaires and billionaires? And we know that these guys don't just hand out money because they like you, what do they want in return? I like the Sanders and Warren pledges to avoid finding themselves in the back pockets of the Capitalist class. It shows that they are taking our objectives far more seriously.
I agree with you, cred, and think electing a candidate who rejects money from billionaires could change political funding forever. To me, this is the single greatest problem that must be addressed.
I can see your point Cred, but would it make a difference if those millionaire and billionaire donations didn't exceed what a 'normal Joe' could give?
My point is that if they, (the rich ones) gave 6-figure donations through various methods, I can see your thoughts about "influence," but what if they only donated $2750(?)? Do you think that is still an influence-trigger?
I hold that same thought regarding PrettyPanther's question. If we are talking about simply those law-limited personal donations, then I don't think it is an automatic care about where the money comes from, (of course you know I am speaking of legit sources).
Well, GA, frankly it doesn't. The Capitalist class is in opposition to the very idea of parity and leveling the playing field in principle. Their influence, or should I say malevolence, is always in the picture. Their influence goes far beyond the money. They naturally have to be in opposition to the kinds of changes that I would prefer to see. Using the "Everyman" approach to disarm people with less ostentatious donations is just a ruse to distract all from their determination to maintain the status quo at ANY price.
Itis the same trick Trump uses when he shows everyone that he eats at Mc Donald's or Colonel Sanders.
He eats Colonel Sanders? Does he taste like chicken? Soylent Green?
An upper-class New Yorker eating McDonald's never look realistic. The man eats (new York style) pizza with a fork.
No, eating at McDonalds for the upper class New Yorker is not credible.
A guy with a gold plated house including a 14k gold commode is not going to impress me with an idea that he is the "man in the street" by letting everyone know that he eats at fast food restaurants. This creates a phony sense of comraderie among the feeble minded that actually believes anything that he says.
He represents the very focus of my ire toward plutocrats and oligarchs in general.
I care very much, PP. To me, the source of the campaign funds is indicative of who the candidate will work for. I'm amazed at the extent Bernie has been able to decimate the decades old argument that candidates need to spend the vast majority of their time pandering to corporations and wealthy donors in order to fund their campaigns. All it takes is policy that shows some compassion for the average citizen.
I too care. If the primary race is not a done deal by the time my state votes, this issue will be one of the deciding ones for me. I think I like Pete. I like the concept of his national service plan. However, how can I trust Pete knowing where he gets his campaign dollars from?
That is a big question, HS. I'm basking in the Bernie wins and polls thus far, but I know it's far from over. If things are going to improve in ways that go beyond gains for shareholders, a people-funded candidate sure seems the way to go. My other concern with Pete is how he announced himself the victor in the midst of all the Iowa chaos (not to mention his campaign having financial ties to Shadow, Inc., which produced the reporting app used in IA).
Is anyone else rolling in the floor laughing at the democratic front runners? You've got 3 rich old white men the front runners vying for the nomination in a party that declared war on rich old white men.
Just goes to show you religious wars are about so much more than the stated claims of the religion. They are about absolutely nothing more than fooling the faithful in order to gain power.
Now that's an observation that has more than a little truth in it.
Just goes to show how you're either not paying attention or have difficulty understanding nuance.
It's rich old white men who want to retain their stranglehold on power and influence by using that power and influence to keep others down. Not all rich old white men are alike. Bloo!berg, yes, he falls into this category, but Bernie does not.
And how many Bloomberg fans have you seen here?
Here means nothing, really. Just looking at your polls. Three old rich white men in the lead. It just tickles me to point out the obvious.
It doesn't take much to amuse you, LTL. If you're amused by these guys, you must really be entertained with Trump's pardoning his criminal cronies. What a gas!
His criminal cronies? What presidential pardons through the years haven't been questionable?
Which ones didn't pardon "criminals", either?
Bloomberg.is doing well in polls because he is spending over ten times the amount on TV advertising. Low information voters eat that up but are far less likely to vote. Biden does well in national polls because of name recognition. Neither will win unless they can motivate the base and that is unlikely to happen.
It's no surprise at all that Trump fans find nothing amiss.
by Eastward 3 years ago
I came across this article, written by an author who initially was not a Bernie Sanders supporter. "If moderate Democrats are serious when they say their only concern is beating President Donald Trump, they should get used to the thought of backing Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.If you believe...
by Credence2 3 years ago
I read an interesting article in Slate today, if you care to peruse here is the linkhttps://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 … a=features--------Important excerpts from the article I have noted below:“He has never taken a political contribution in his life. He is not about to start,”...
by Jack Lee 4 years ago
In 2016, we had a Trump candidate on the GOP along with 16 other candidates running for President. Trump jumped into the mix because he believed non of the other 16 candidates can beat Hillary and the Democratic machine including the biased media...He also said the main reason he is running is to...
by Credence2 6 years ago
I would have liked to have more of a reason to support the Democratic ticket beyond the fact that I strongly dislike and distrust Trump and Pense. Clinton with her recent VP pick hasn't given me one.While Caine is more of a centrist and safe choice, the fact is that there are so many of us...
by PrettyPanther 3 years ago
The field is big (23), the stakes are high (defeat Trump), and the race is long (13 months until the Democratic convention).As a Democratic voter, I am keeping an open mind at this early date. As a political junkie, I am fascinated by the dynamics of who rises to the top and who fades away. Biden's...
by ga anderson 3 years ago
I caught part of an interview clip with Michael Bloomberg's campaign manager. The discussion was about the rumor that Bloomberg was prepared to spend $2 Billion of his own money in his campaignHis manager wouldn't confirm this and the discussion turned to why Bloomberg wasn't registered or...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|