All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[aja_christopher]

I dunno about how to get Republicans to agree -- I mean, you probably can't get the vast majority, so it would really need to be the Dems, with maybe a few stray Republicans who could somehow be convinced -- but, I think the general idea would probably be to close loopholes for very rich individuals and for corporations.

Given the wealth that many of these individuals/corporations have amassed over the years, I know much could be done via increased taxes on the wealthy.

I'd just like to see a plan that lays out more precisely how it will be done, and more cooperation and collaboration with those he intends to do it with.

Realistically speaking, nearly everyone understands that if you want something expensive, you first have to figure out how to pay for it.

It seems less of a solid plan and more of an idealistic vision, and this late in the game I just believe that voters deserve better in that regard given the risks.

Sanders can't do this alone -- he's going to need all the Democratic support he can get and he needs to deal with that reality sooner rather than later.

Especially if his goal is to raise taxes while Republicans have any semblance of power in Congress or the White House.

[shooshoomanjoe]

There's really no point in arguing your point to Bernie Bros when they start dismissing Time and Politico as fake news and using Vox for facts.

[Theleviathan]

I dunno about how to get Republicans to agree -- I mean, you probably can't get the vast majority, so it would really need to be the Dems, with maybe a few stray Republicans who could somehow be convinced -- but, I think the general idea would probably be to close loopholes for very rich individuals and for corporations. Like, if you Google "how much tax does Amazon pay", cnbc and fortune seem to suggest they paid no income tax. I mean, this article...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-am...er-11560504602

... suggests it's not so simple, and I think ultimately suggests we "can't know" exactly how much Amazon pays in taxes ... but, to my mind, that kind of reasoning would be what we mean, when we say, "loopholes". I don't think Amazon has done anything illegal, tax-wise, I'm sure they are strictly following the rules ... just, the rules are set up to benefit them, incredibly.

And every other major business, and every individual with a great deal of wealth, which all makes sense, because these would be the people who would have lobbyists and such, and ultimately have the candidates' ears, and who in turn can benefit candidates greatly, when it comes to re-elections, and to retiring to cushy corporate jobs.

I mean, I'm not saying it can all be paid for, by taxing the rich ... but, I guess I am saying, I suspect that your rank-and-file voter will likely be more able to swallow significant increases in taxes for the upper crusts, than on the middle class ... and honestly, there's just the basic reasoning that if we take 20% of your income and you make 10 million, you're still doing pretty okay, versus if I take 20% and you make 10 thousand ... yeah, you probably just go from relying on the kindness of strangers to being outright homeless, in the latter case.

And sure, poor Republicans are fiercely protective of their masters' wealth, regardless of how horribly screwed they, themselves, are. But I suppose the idea would be that enough of the general public would be able to see reason, to manage positive change, despite those very confused souls.

I can get behind that, but hasn't the approach of Sanders and Warren been to acknowledge taxes will go up but it will be offset by removing premiums, co-pays, etc.?

I mean, I think that's a good argument in terms of honesty. It might work for many reasonable people. I'm also on board that the Dems need to do more to reduce the stigma around "taxes". Nevertheless....there is a stigma.

[numberthirty]

In pretty much any poll, just over 60 percent of Democrats are backing a white guy over the age of 75 (be it Biden, Bernie or Bloomberg.) The party had and still has plenty of other options. The ordinary people just don't care.

Never mind that almost every leadership position in the party is filled by someone from the "Old Folks Home..." bracket.

If it's really any kind of an issue with voters, they have yet to let on.

That's before you even get into how everyone from the "Younger..." bracket, making an exception for Yang, did in the primary thus far.

Again...

If age is an issue, what's going on doesn't really reflect it being the case.

[Zauriel]

If a septuagenarian wins the democratic nomination, there will be a battle between two septuagenarians in the Pres. election.

Well, none of these democratic candidates have a chance of defeating the incumbent POTUS who can shoot somebody on the fifth avenue and still get re-elected by the dumbest people in America.

Democracy ends when the people no longer have the wisdom to elect a good leader.

[AnakinFlair]

Last week my Insurance company literally denied my Metformin because of something in the code that I had to opt out of that they never told me existed. When I called UHC, they said there was nothing they could do it was up to CVS Caremark.
CVS Caremark rep didn't even know it existed, then told me my only option was to have the doctor provide me a 90 day Scrip, not a 30 day scrip.

Our Healthcare system is insane.

I used to take three different medications to sleep. with my insurance, I could get a 90 day supply for two, but I could only get a 30 day supply for the third. I could only get a 90 day supply if I paid out of pocket.

[Adam Allen]

Given the wealth that many of these individuals/corporations have amassed over the years, I know much could be done via increased taxes on the wealthy.

I'd just like to see a plan that lays out more precisely how it will be done, and more cooperation and collaboration with those he intends to do it with.

Realistically speaking, nearly everyone understands that if you want something expensive, you first have to figure out how to pay for it.

It seems less of a solid plan and more of an idealistic vision, and this late in the game I just believe that voters deserve better in that regard given the risks.

Sanders can't do this alone -- he's going to need all the Democratic support he can get and he needs to deal with that reality sooner rather than later.

Especially if his goal is to raise taxes while Republicans have any semblance of power in Congress or the White House.

Can't argue that a solid plan would definitely be more reassuring, that he's not just talking pie in the sky, with absolutely no roadmap of how to get there ... but, at the same time, I think realistically a very solid plan, you know down to decimals and all, would kind of be a waste of time, seeing as he can't enact any kind of laws as president himself, even if he did have it all figured out.

Yeah, he absolutely can't do it alone. But, he has already worked with Democrats in Congress while he has been in Congress, and if he somehow manages to become president, that will as well only be through being able to work with Democrats, even if he doesn't really want to take the label, himself. I guess I mean, for all that he does unfortunately seem very often a pretty divisive figure ... you know, someone earlier pointed out, he at least has had the sense to not just try to run as Independent, and disastrously split the only possible coalition that can possibly bring the country back from the brink of disaster.

I personally wish the infighting seemed a little less intense, but I suppose at the end of the day, we have to say that's politics ... I do maintain some small faith that some (if not many) of our politicians on the left really are trying to accomplish what they legitimately think is best for the majority of the people ... and that they can often end up looking so bad not because they really are just horrible, but because they are just human ... and only about as horrible as the rest of us, I guess.

Anyway, just saying I maintain some hope these guys do intend to try to work together, regardless of who the eventual candidate for president, and hopefully eventual president, ends up being.

I can get behind that, but hasn't the approach of Sanders and Warren been to acknowledge taxes will go up but it will be offset by removing premiums, co-pays, etc.?

I mean, I think that's a good argument in terms of honesty. It might work for many reasonable people. I'm also on board that the Dems need to do more to reduce the stigma around "taxes". Nevertheless....there is a stigma.

Well, while nobody really "likes" taxes, realistically we all know they are a fact of life, and most of us are able to understand that common goods like roads and public education are paid for by them ... and as well, we know we can more easily afford to manage paying out slightly more in many small amounts in general, than we can just outright pay large amounts like school loans or large medical bills, when those are needed. I mean, I think most people can appreciate how much they would benefit, if the larger weight of these things could really be mitigated ... and I think they'd be willing to pay out more in taxes, to accomplish that.

The two challenges I think would be one, convincing them that things like free college and universal health care really are doable in the first place (personally, I'm already there), and two ... well, I think there are some who would really be willing to deny themselves those kinds of benefits, if they thought getting them would mean other people, who they think are less deserving, would also get them. I mean, I think that's the problem with poor Republicans ... I think they'd deny things that would benefit them, just out of spite for other poor people, who they irrationally look down upon.

I think we just have to work around those people, though.

[Astral Disaster]

Can't argue that a solid plan would definitely be more reassuring, that he's not just talking pie in the sky, with absolutely no roadmap of how to get there ... but, at the same time, I think realistically a very solid plan, you know down to decimals and all, would kind of be a waste of time, seeing as he can't enact any kind of laws as president himself, even if he did have it all figured out.

Yeah, he absolutely can't do it alone. But, he has already worked with Democrats in Congress while he has been in Congress, and if he somehow manages to become president, that will as well only be through being able to work with Democrats, even if he doesn't really want to take the label, himself. I guess I mean, for all that he does unfortunately seem very often a pretty divisive figure ... you know, someone earlier pointed out, he at least has had the sense to not just try to run as Independent, and disastrously split the only possible coalition that can possibly bring the country back from the brink of disaster.

I personally wish the infighting seemed a little less intense, but I suppose at the end of the day, we have to say that's politics ... I do maintain some small faith that some (if not many) of our politicians on the left really are trying to accomplish what they legitimately think is best for the majority of the people ... and that they can often end up looking so bad not because they really are just horrible, but because they are just human ... and only about as horrible as the rest of us, I guess.

Anyway, just saying I maintain some hope these guys do intend to try to work together, regardless of who the eventual candidate for president, and hopefully eventual president, ends up being.



Well, while nobody really "likes" taxes, realistically we all know they are a fact of life, and most of us are able to understand that common goods like roads and public education are paid for by them ... and as well, we know we can more easily afford to manage paying out slightly more in many small amounts in general, than we can just outright pay large amounts like school loans or large medical bills, when those are needed. I mean, I think most people can appreciate how much they would benefit, if the larger weight of these things could really be mitigated ... and I think they'd be willing to pay out more in taxes, to accomplish that.

The two challenges I think would be one, convincing them that things like free college and universal health care really are doable in the first place (personally, I'm already there), and two ... well, I think there are some who would really be willing to deny themselves those kinds of benefits, if they thought getting them would mean other people, who they think are less deserving, would also get them. I mean, I think that's the problem with poor Republicans ... I think they'd deny things that would benefit them, just out of spite for other poor people, who they irrationally look down upon.

I think we just have to work around those people, though.

Definitely a thing, and definitely something Republicans have played upon for decades to block, and even roll back, progress on services which could benefit everyone.

[Celgress]

Wow, this thread has gone off the rails (as has political Twitter). If I was a registered Democrat (I'm an independent) I'd feel so sad. I thought this thread would be all impeachment trial talk this week yet Warren v. Bernie, Bernie v. Biden and the Ghost of Hillary Clinton have muddied the waters. I've said it before and I'll say it now, the Democrats need to get on the same page and stop wounding each other, nomination race and all. If they don't Trumper will coast to victory.

[Theleviathan]

The two challenges I think would be one, convincing them that things like free college and universal health care really are doable in the first place (personally, I'm already there), and two ... well, I think there are some who would really be willing to deny themselves those kinds of benefits, if they thought getting them would mean other people, who they think are less deserving, would also get them. I mean, I think that's the problem with poor Republicans ... I think they'd deny things that would benefit them, just out of spite for other poor people, who they irrationally look down upon. I think we just have to work around those people, though.

I'm all about universal health care. However, I think the free college plans are absurdly dumb. If that ever gets passed we will regret it worse than we regret the student loan program. It's a terrible, terrible idea as currently constructed. But I digress...

I think you have more faith in the average voter than I do. There is significant resistance to taxes and large government programs. Polling and past elections indicate these are not popular issues. Universal health care is popular on a surface level, but when you probe past the surface it gets very dicey.

I'd suggest you may be making the mistake that because the position is rational, that voters will recognize that and vote rationally. But evidence would indicate that voters are for more likely to be emotional than rational. Take the odd case of being kicked off your insurance. By all polling we have this is deeply unpopular, but that's totally irrational. We get routinely kicked off our insurance or our plans through employment all the time. (Bernie, to his credit, is pointing that out) So to be worried about a new system that effectively does the same thing is sorta dumb. But American voters are sorta dumb. So part of the challenge Bernie and his supporters have is cutting through that stupidity and achieving agreement. That's not easily done. And in the end you can't "work around them". If those people vote for Trump it's worse than if they didn't vote at all.

[Theleviathan]

Wow, this thread has gone off the rails (as has political Twitter). If I was a registered Democrat (I'm an independent) I'd feel so sad. I thought this thread would be all impeachment trial talk this week yet Warren v. Bernie, Bernie v. Biden and the Ghost of Hillary Clinton have muddied the waters. I've said it before and I'll say it now, the Democrats need to get on the same page and stop wounding each other, nomination race and all. If they don't Trumper will coast to victory.

I don't know why it warrants conversation. I mean, I wish it did, but we're just going through the motions until something changes.

[Celgress]

I don't know why it warrants conversation. I mean, I wish it did, but we're just going through the motions until something changes.

True, it is an exercise in futility. That said, I was more pointing to the Democratic disunity caused by Warren v. Bernie, Bernie v. Biden, and Clinton's little project. Sad that when this was to be a great news week for the Dems these things happened. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.

[numberthirty]

Why is John Delaney still running? He's polling at 0%, he can't be getting that many campaign donations, so it's not about the money. So why is he still wasting his time running for President?

If that guy's interview at The Vice News Presents The Iowa Brown & Black Democratic Presidential Forum this last week is a politician "Still Wasting His Time Running For President...", I wish a bunch of Democrats would consider similarly wasting their time.

[aja_christopher]

"Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution"

"If the Trump era has taught us anything, it's that large numbers of white people in the United States are motivated at least in part by racism in the voting booth. Donald Trump ran an openly racist campaign for president, calling Mexicans rapists and criminals, regularly retweeting white supremacists and at least initially balking at repudiating former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Trump made it clear in his campaign that "Make America Great Again" meant that America was greater when white people's power was more sweeping and more secure. White voters approved of that message by a whopping 58 percent to 37 percent.

Some politicians deny the evidence, no doubt because they don't want to alienate white voters, including prejudiced ones. Other commentators try to parse whether Trump's racism will be a winning strategy in 2020. Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, "Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box." Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it...

The usual remedy for racial discrimination is censure or fines — as Trump was subjected to when the Justice Department found that his housing developments were discriminating against black tenants in the 1970s. It's more difficult to censure voters who have violated their constitutional duties. Nullifying elections would be essentially impossible. But Smith argues that there are other options.

"I think we can dismantle some of the features of the electoral system that encourage racialized decision-making," he says. "For instance, you only get a partisan gerrymander by moving people in and out of districts on the basis of their race." Ending this practice at the state and federal levels would be a big step toward reducing the power of racism at the ballot box, as would ending the use of Voter IDs intended to disenfranchise black voters...

It's difficult to address injustice, however, if you're unwilling to say injustice exists. Politicians and pundits, Republican and Democratic alike, have been unwilling to reprimand voters or hold them accountable. But voters are not well-intentioned innocents who are helplessly manipulated by malevolent leaders. They make important decisions as constitutional actors, for which they have moral responsibility. Racist voting isn't an accident. It's a choice that may violate the principles of our Constitution and our legal system.

We should say so, and then we should find ways to reduce the harm it causes."


https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ey-ncna1110356

[Malvolio]

If that guy's interview at The Vice News Presents The Iowa Brown & Black Democratic Presidential Forum this last week is a politician "Still Wasting His Time Running For President...", I wish a bunch of Democrats would consider similarly wasting their time.

OK, I might be persuaded to agree with the guy's policies, but do you really want more Democrats in this Primary? Wouldn't his time be better spent supporting the front-runner whose opinions are closest to his? That's what Julian Castro is doing, and he at least had better name recognition than Delaney.