Thoughts on the 2020 Democratic Field Policy and Focus of your Candidate.

[Gray Lensman]

I don't disagree with much of what you're saying here. As a middle-aged black person, I'll say that there's many people in my demographics that don't totally trust Bernie. He's got to figure out a way to reach them/us. For what it's worth, that same demographic doesn't totally trust Harris either, they/we are probably even more against her.

But yeah, the idea that Sanders is a troublemaker or upstart thus the establishment-corporate dems are against him, I think is completely true ( I also think that the attacks on Cortez, by both the right and old dems, are attacks on Sander by proxy). And the thing of the idea of the socially liberal but fiscal conservative candidate is something that the Libertarians have a lock on. I wouldn't mind a democrat running on such a concept, but who's brave enough to do so? Will Beto go there? Will Booker?

There is even room to do so from a more Dem friendly version of left wing libertarianism. The idea is to pose the argument (which has a great deal of truth to it even if it isn't the full picture) that many of the regulations in place don't serve the purpose of consumer protection or workplace safety, but to put roadblocks in place to lock startups out of the marketplace. Ajit Pai's proposed 5G rules are a perfect example of this, they seem crafted to make sure that only the big players can afford to enter by pricing the regional players out of the new market.

[Malvolio]

But there is a connection between social issues and fiscal issues. For example, diehard libertarians will tell you that we don't need the FDA, that we should let the "free market" sort things out. Well, how exactly is that supposed to work? I mean, I don't have time to go through the supermarket with a microscope to determine if the meat or produce I buy is safe or not. Hell, even if I did, I wouldn't know what to look for if I did.

The "free market" only works if the sellers of goods and services are honest about those goods and services that they sell. But the history of advertising tells us that that just doesn't happen. So we have to depend on word of mouth, only after the fact. How many people have to get sick, and maybe even die, before the "free market" sorts it all out? We need a government agency to test out products regularly and inform the public if those products are flawed. I mean, look at that recent plane crash. Would that have happened if a government agency had been overseeing things? I know that was in another country, but with the budget cuts to our agencies, it would have only been a matter of time before it happened to an airline in this country.

[numberthirty]

But there is a connection between social issues and fiscal issues. For example, diehard libertarians will tell you that we don't need the FDA, that we should let the "free market" sort things out. Well, how exactly is that supposed to work? I mean, I don't have time to go through the supermarket with a microscope to determine if the meat or produce I buy is safe or not. Hell, even if I did, I wouldn't know what to look for if I did.

The "free market" only works if the sellers of goods and services are honest about those goods and services that they sell. But the history of advertising tells us that that just doesn't happen. So we have to depend on word of mouth, only after the fact. How many people have to get sick, and maybe even die, before the "free market" sorts it all out? We need a government agency to test out products regularly and inform the public if those products are flawed. I mean, look at that recent plane crash. Would that have happened if a government agency had been overseeing things? I know that was in another country, but with the budget cuts to our agencies, it would have only been a matter of time before it happened to an airline in this country.

(Since this is sort of "Off Topic", I'll keep it brief)

Even with the existing rules, there are plenty of examples where the food on the shelf is making folks sick and killing them.

While I would imagine that one could make a case for a "Limited Reach" run of cutting back some regulation, there is a perfectly solid reason some regulations exist.

[Gray Lensman]

But there is a connection between social issues and fiscal issues. For example, diehard libertarians will tell you that we don't need the FDA, that we should let the "free market" sort things out. Well, how exactly is that supposed to work? I mean, I don't have time to go through the supermarket with a microscope to determine if the meat or produce I buy is safe or not. Hell, even if I did, I wouldn't know what to look for if I did.

The "free market" only works if the sellers of goods and services are honest about those goods and services that they sell. But the history of advertising tells us that that just doesn't happen. So we have to depend on word of mouth, only after the fact. How many people have to get sick, and maybe even die, before the "free market" sorts it all out? We need a government agency to test out products regularly and inform the public if those products are flawed. I mean, look at that recent plane crash. Would that have happened if a government agency had been overseeing things? I know that was in another country, but with the budget cuts to our agencies, it would have only been a matter of time before it happened to an airline in this country.

I would imagine that a leftist libertarian is unlikely to take the 'slash and burn the government' mentality of the Libertarian Party diehards. I'm a member, but I take a much more moderate stance. Roll some agencies into each other that already do very similar jobs, see what regulations can be streamlined without having a detrimental effect, and approach other rules from the standpoint of ensuring that the 'free market' is really free, and that everyone in it is being honest.

Right now we have Crony Capitalism, which IMO manages to provide those on top with the benefits of both Capitalism and Socialism, while pushing the costs of both systems onto people like me.

[PwrdOn]

Right now we have Crony Capitalism, which IMO manages to provide those on top with the benefits of both Capitalism and Socialism, while pushing the costs of both systems onto people like me.

If you look at it on a global scale though, anybody living in a reasonably modern country could be seen as part of the privileged elite leeching the benefits from the hard labor of the impoverished masses of the third world, and I have yet to see any politician in any country even start to talk about how we can start to address this problem.

[PaulBullion]

If you look at it on a global scale though, anybody living in a reasonably modern country could be seen as part of the privileged elite leeching the benefits from the hard labor of the impoverished masses of the third world, and I have yet to see any politician in any country even start to talk about how we can start to address this problem.

In a country where 42 to 48% approve of a racist grifter, it's safe to assume that too many voters think of people outside the US as lazy, virus carrying shitbags. It would sink any campaign immediately.

[PwrdOn]

In a country where 42 to 48% approve of a racist grifter, it's safe to assume that too many voters think of people outside the US as lazy, virus carrying shitbags. It would sink any campaign immediately.

Whether we want to admit it or not, the truth of the matter is that building any kind of functioning welfare state in America will inevitably lead to unprecedented levels of immigration from every corner of the globe. While it is easy for conservatives to invent BS reasons why these people should be kept out, it will be a much tougher task for supposedly woke progressives to explain why they are deserving of free health care and education, and people who look just like them but didn't have the good fortune to be born on US soil should be denied those same privileges.

In the long term, the only real solution to this is to fix the global economic system to be more equitable, and I don't mean just having a bunch of clueless celebrities doing feel good charitable projects that have no real effect, but a serious reform of how the international order operates to be less extractive in nature. It is plainly obvious that whatever exploitation of American workers pales in comparison to the conditions that the truly impoverished must toil under. And ultimately it's these people that are responsible for making most of the stuff that we take for granted, and have no outlet to express their frustration to their governments, who are often conveniently run by American backed puppets put there to serve our interests at the expense of their own people.

[ed2962]

But there is a connection between social issues and fiscal issues. For example, diehard libertarians will tell you that we don't need the FDA, that we should let the "free market" sort things out. Well, how exactly is that supposed to work? I mean, I don't have time to go through the supermarket with a microscope to determine if the meat or produce I buy is safe or not. Hell, even if I did, I wouldn't know what to look for if I did.

The "free market" only works if the sellers of goods and services are honest about those goods and services that they sell. But the history of advertising tells us that that just doesn't happen. So we have to depend on word of mouth, only after the fact. How many people have to get sick, and maybe even die, before the "free market" sorts it all out? We need a government agency to test out products regularly and inform the public if those products are flawed. I mean, look at that recent plane crash. Would that have happened if a government agency had been overseeing things? I know that was in another country, but with the budget cuts to our agencies, it would have only been a matter of time before it happened to an airline in this country.

I think there's a certain type of internet "libertarian" who take that slash and burn/no regulation/taxes is theft approach, but I think most reasonable people know that we need some controls. There's a kinda funny clip from the Joe Rogan show with him interviewing Dave Rubin who was a liberal and is now claiming to be a libertarian and mostly has "right leaning" guests on his show. Anyway, Dave tries to make the point that without govt regulations "the free market" would kick in and everything would be fine. Joe has to explain to him that what actually happens is that without those regulations is that folks to cut corners and put others at risk. Dave sorta looks at Joe dumbfounded and keeps trying bringing it back to "the govt."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY9ZBGFQNUE

[Mia]

I'm not an American. But I like Kamila Harris and Pete Buttigieg, they come across as two practical people. I also like Sanders.

Beto O'Rourke reminds me of our prime minister here in Canada. An attention seeking grandstander with no substance. Trump will eat him alive. Especially since O'Rourke comes across the pretentious limousine liberal that drove many towards Trump in the person.

[Tazirai]

I'm not an American. But I like Kamila Harris and Pete Buttigieg, they come across as two practical people. I also like Sanders.

Beto O'Rourke reminds me of our prime minister here in Canada. An attention seeking grandstander with no substance. Trump will eat him alive. Especially since O'Rourke comes across the pretentious limousine liberal that drove many towards Trump in the person.

If you want to see a good video of Pete, He was just on the View the other day, and laid down some real policy proposals.

I can't find a longer video, but if it's on their Twitter. I'd suggest you check it out.

[Tazirai]

Also, let's please TRY at least to stay on and lay out the candidates Policies, and their relations.

I don't want this to turn into the other thread. :P

[Tazirai]

Here's an issue that I'm glad many in the Democratic field are proposing. Kamala Harris and Warren have been especially strong on this. I'm hoping more of the Democratic field can announce how they see this issue.

I know Bernie has an overall stance on Economic Justice, and has stood with Teachers Unions. But I would LOVE to see him and all the others adopt the same plan as a stark contrast to the GOP. Especially if you can reduce the Tax cuts to help pay for teacher pay expansion on a Federal Level.

Do You Think Teachers Are Underpaid? Your Answer Depends on One Key Factor

Like seemingly every other topic in 2018, teacher pay is now officially a politically divisive issue.

Results of a poll from education policy journal Education Next out Tuesday indicate that more left-leaning Americans support raising teacher salaries than right-leaning ones. When provided with the average annual salary of teachers in their states, 59% of Democratic respondents told pollsters they thought teacher pay should go up, while 38% of Republicans said the same.

(The report didn’t speculate as to why the two sides were split on the issue, though the discrepancy could be linked to Republicans’ reticence to pay higher taxes in order to fund the would-be raises.)

Democrats campaigned to raise teacher pay. For now, more are prepared to strike

The 116th Congress was only sworn in a few weeks ago; in the House, Democratic leaders are still assigning members to key committees and subcommittees.

The strikes inspired support on social media and among voters, who helped pave the way for the Democratic Party’s 40-seat gain in the House last November.
Still, Democrats are facing pressure to act on the issue, after siding with teachers who staged a rising number of strikes since last year — in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arizona, and most recently California, as well as a possible repeat in Colorado, where teachers already walked out last April. The strikes inspired support on social media — spawning the #RedForED hashtag — and among voters, who helped pave the way for the Democratic Party’s 40-seat gain in the House last November. One educator even joined their ranks; Jahana Hayes, the 2016 Teacher of the Year, was elected to Congress by the state of Connecticut.

The party leaned on the issue in high-profile governors’ races as well, including in Wisconsin, where the state’s superintendent of public instruction, Democrat Tony Evers, unseated the incumbent Republican Scott Walker.

[numberthirty]

I'm not an American. But I like Kamila Harris and Pete Buttigieg, they come across as two practical people. I also like Sanders.

Beto O'Rourke reminds me of our prime minister here in Canada. An attention seeking grandstander with no substance. Trump will eat him alive. Especially since O'Rourke comes across the pretentious limousine liberal that drove many towards Trump in the person.

This afternoon, Pete pointed out that The Democratic Party put too much on the Republican nominee and not enough on the issues in 2016.

That's pretty practical.

[wjowski]

I'm not an American. But I like Kamila Harris and Pete Buttigieg, they come across as two practical people. I also like Sanders.

Beto O'Rourke reminds me of our prime minister here in Canada. An attention seeking grandstander with no substance. Trump will eat him alive. Especially since O'Rourke comes across the pretentious limousine liberal that drove many towards Trump in the person.

Trump was embarrassed in the debates by Hillary "Candidate Americans Most Want To Have An 8oz Glass Of Tap Water With" Clinton.

He's not eating anyone alive. Hell I could get up there and make fool out of him, probably.

[numberthirty]

Trump was embarrassed in the debates by Hillary "Candidate Americans Most Want To Have An 8oz Glass Of Tap Water With" Clinton.

He's not eating anyone alive. Hell I could get up there and make fool out of him, probably.

You're(well, hopefully) not O'Rourke.

The guy is having to apologize every ten minutes, and stumbling on questions from what appear to be college age folks.

That's without anyone really going after him in a situation where he is essentially just having to give a sales pitch.