Democrats eye Nevada, South Carolina after Sanders wins in New Hampshire

[Cryingdick]

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

When a house is on fire and has other problems, putting out the fire is the top priority.

 

Not sure where the fire is? People have record high levels of optimism. 59% say better than last year and 74% say will be better next year. Life is basically as good as it's ever been n the USA. You keep shouting fire in November when there isn't one and see how that goes.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284264/record-high-optimism-personal-finances.aspx

[heybruce]

40 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Not sure where the fire is? People have record high levels of optimism. 59% say better than last year and 74% say will be better next year. Life is basically as good as it's ever been n the USA. You keep shouting fire in November when there isn't one and see how that goes.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284264/record-high-optimism-personal-finances.aspx

Checks and balances are being destroyed.  The Justice Department is being politicized.  The President's defense team presented the legal argument that anything a President does to get re-elected is not impeachable.  The environment is being degraded.  Allies are being lost or betrayed, dictators are being flattered and their global position strengthened.  The Federal Deficit, which is supposed to go down during a good economy, has been shooting up.

 

That last part will be key when the next recession hits.  Economics dictates that deficit spending should be increased to bolster a faltering economy, not a strong one.  The large and unnecessary increase in the deficit under Trump will really hurt when the next downturn comes, and it may be before November.

[Jingthing]

I'm not quite as concerned about the deficit but it is ironic that republicans turn into deficit hawks when they're out of power, but spend like mad when they're in.

 

In this case, it's not so much about the "economy stupid" as a choice overall about the future of American democracy. 

 

Do American voters want to continue with the 45 agenda which is about an authoritarian strong man leader completely above all laws such as Russia, Hungary, and Turkey or do they want to stop this horrific leap towards the permanent end to American democracy before it's too late (if it isn't too late already). 

 

But politically speaking I don't think enough Americans get that the very core of the future of American democracy is under existential threat now. So I think 45 can be beat on his lies about health care, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and social security. 

[sirineou]

All states should vote at the same time for the nomination.

This process where different states get to choose from different candidates is like a pre primary where money selects who many of as get to vote for. By the time this thing gets to me at my home state of Florida where I am registered, I will have a limited choice of candidates. All designed to circumvent democracy IMO 

Which is one of the reasons why so many people don't even bother to vote,

Two months of primary campaigning . everyone votes on a weekend or holiday.

Six months of general election campaigning, everyone votes on a weekend or holiday, with a day long of knws backout on that day. 

 

 

[heybruce]

55 minutes ago, sirineou said:

All states should vote at the same time for the nomination.

This process where different states get to choose from different candidates is like a pre primary where money selects who many of as get to vote for. By the time this thing gets to me at my home state of Florida where I am registered, I will have a limited choice of candidates. All designed to circumvent democracy IMO 

Which is one of the reasons why so many people don't even bother to vote,

Two months of primary campaigning . everyone votes on a weekend or holiday.

Six months of general election campaigning, everyone votes on a weekend or holiday, with a day long of knws backout on that day.

Pretty much the entire election process is badly out of whack:  Too much time, too much money, too much influence for those with money, 24 hour news giving too much air time to candidates based on their entertainment/ratings value, and an indefensible tradition of giving Iowa and New Hampshire too much power to shape the elections.  And these are just the problems that come immediately to mind.

 

The Bernie idea I like most is the one to reform campaign finance.  I just don't think he can get it done.  He'd need strong support from the House and Senate, and a left-wing candidate will give both the House and Senate to the Republicans.

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Pretty much the entire election process is badly out of whack:  Too much time, too much money, too much influence for those with money, 24 hour news giving too much air time to candidates based on their entertainment/ratings value, and an indefensible tradition of giving Iowa and New Hampshire too much power to shape the elections.  And these are just the problems that come immediately to mind.

 

The Bernie idea I like most is the one to reform campaign finance.  I just don't think he can get it done.  He'd need strong support from the House and Senate, and a left-wing candidate will give both the House and Senate to the Republicans.

Both sides of congress is bought and paid by big money. 

The process is a joke choreographed like a wrestling show, complete with graphics and voiceovers

Smackdown at the election!!!!   "I know you watched the debate, but you are to stupid to know what they said , here is what they really said"

"California, don't even bother to vote, Exit polls indicate who will win anyway"

It is really a joke. 

 

[Cryingdick]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Checks and balances are being destroyed.  The Justice Department is being politicized.  The President's defense team presented the legal argument that anything a President does to get re-elected is not impeachable.  The environment is being degraded.  Allies are being lost or betrayed, dictators are being flattered and their global position strengthened.  The Federal Deficit, which is supposed to go down during a good economy, has been shooting up.

 

That last part will be key when the next recession hits.  Economics dictates that deficit spending should be increased to bolster a faltering economy, not a strong one.  The large and unnecessary increase in the deficit under Trump will really hurt when the next downturn comes, and it may be before November.

 

YEs the debt is a concern. However look at the numbers the dem candidates are throwing around. You think they intend to stop spending? Some of their plans involve amounts of money that don't technically even exist.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

YEs the debt is a concern. However look at the numbers the dem candidates are throwing around. You think they intend to stop spending? Some of their plans involve amounts of money that don't technically even exist.

Only Sanders and Warren are promising big spending increases, and both are proposing taxes to pay for the increases.

 

I realize that Republicans think taxes are worse than Satanism, but a first world economy needs a first world infrastructure and enough of a safety net so citizens feel secure enough to change jobs, start businesses, start a family, etc.  These things cost money.

Edited February 14, 2020 by heybruce

[Cryingdick]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Only Sanders and Warren are promising big spending increases, and both are proposing taxes to pay for the increases.

 

I realize that Republicans think taxes are worse than Satanism, but a first world economy needs a first world infrastructure and enough of a safety net so citizens feel secure enough to change jobs, start businesses, start a family, etc.  These things cost money.

 

That's a problem when Bernie is leading. But it isn't just the spending it's the fact that many of them want to actually destroy wealth. No idea what Bloomberg has to say so far. 

 

The dems really need to find the key to the battleground states if they hope to have any chance. I am saying that with no malice. Scale back all the grandiose plans and just try to win. Stop saying you are going to put people out of business and just try to win.

 

They can't stop trying to out do each other with big plans. Just pretend to be normal and win. 

 

Most dem tax plans don't bring the bottom closer to the top, they bring the middle closer to the bottom. 

 

You should be careful what you wish for if you live abroad using the USD. The dems start printing money you may find your money gets seriously devalued.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Cryingdick

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

Both sides of congress is bought and paid by big money. 

The process is a joke choreographed like a wrestling show, complete with graphics and voiceovers

Smackdown at the election!!!!   "I know you watched the debate, but you are to stupid to know what they said , here is what they really said"

"California, don't even bother to vote, Exit polls indicate who will win anyway"

It is really a joke. 

 

Less than 10 states are ever in doubt in modern presidential elections and those that are set are usually known months or years before voting. Another example of how undemocratic is the electoral college system. 

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Less than 10 states are ever in doubt in modern presidential elections and those that are set are usually known months or years before voting. Another example of how undemocratic is the electoral college system. 

 

The electoral college is a good example of why there are checks and balances to avoid mob rule. I am not sure why the left wants the federal government to be strong. 

 

Do what you want in California and let the states decide. The individual can decide what type of place they wish to live in. Why is there this desperate urge to impose a one size fits all on the entire country?

 

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Cryingdick

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Pretty much the entire election process is badly out of whack:  Too much time, too much money, too much influence for those with money, 24 hour news giving too much air time to candidates based on their entertainment/ratings value, and an indefensible tradition of giving Iowa and New Hampshire too much power to shape the elections.  And these are just the problems that come immediately to mind.

 

The Bernie idea I like most is the one to reform campaign finance.  I just don't think he can get it done.  He'd need strong support from the House and Senate, and a left-wing candidate will give both the House and Senate to the Republicans.

The truth is that as far as what can actually get done in a progressive direction Klobuchar and Bloomberg can accomplish basically the same or even more than Bernie if elected. It's all talk during campaigns. In real life bills need to pass in congress that has more or less Republicans ready to block them or water them down if you are lucky. 

[Jingthing]

4 hours ago, sirineou said:

All states should vote at the same time for the nomination.

This process where different states get to choose from different candidates is like a pre primary where money selects who many of as get to vote for. By the time this thing gets to me at my home state of Florida where I am registered, I will have a limited choice of candidates. All designed to circumvent democracy IMO 

Which is one of the reasons why so many people don't even bother to vote,

Two months of primary campaigning . everyone votes on a weekend or holiday.

Six months of general election campaigning, everyone votes on a weekend or holiday, with a day long of knws backout on that day. 

 

 

Never going to happen and shouldn't ever happen. But Iowa and New Hampshire being first when they are so white in a democratic party that is not so white has got to stop! 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Jingthing

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The truth is that as far as what can actually get done in a progressive direction Klobuchar and Bloomberg can accomplish basically the same or even more than Bernie if elected. It's all talk during campaigns. In real life bills need to pass in congress that has more or less Republicans ready to block them or water them down if you are lucky. 

 

This is true so why don't they tone down the rhetoric and just focus on winning? Stop promising some warped version of utopia and promises you can never make and people are suspicious of.

 

 

[sucit]

20 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

But don't mention the deficit currently standing at $1.067 trillion and for gods sake don't mention the National Debt currently standing at a whopping $22 trillion an increase of $2 trillion since Trump took office.

Oh and just for context:- 

1 million seconds is 11 days

1 trillion seconds is 31,709 YEARS

Trump cuts taxes on the rich. Deficit skyrockets. Taxpayers pay it off (presumably). 

 

In other words, Trump just gave your own money to the rich elite. 

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, sucit said:

Trump cuts taxes on the rich. Deficit skyrockets. Taxpayers pay it off (presumably). 

 

In other words, Trump just gave your own money to the rich elite. 

 

You are assuming the money rich people make is the governments by default. The government didn't earn it or more importantly create it. Tax cuts are nothing more than letting the rightful owner keep what is theirs. 

 

I got a tax cut out of the Trump cuts and many people who actually live in the USA and work here will tell you the same thing. The reason people are poor in the USA 90% of the time is due to very poor decisions they make. 

 

 

[sirineou]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Never going to happen and shouldn't ever happen. But Iowa and New Hampshire being first when they are so white in a democratic party that is not so white has got to stop! 

I agree with you that it is never going to happen

Why should it not happen? what problems other than logistics, would it create if all states held their primaries at the same time. 

I am sure that there might be unforeseen , and perhaps foreseen consequences, but would  these consequences  be worse than what we have now?  

Perhaps we need to go to a parliamentary system.(another thing that will never happen) 

all I know is that the current system is not working for the majority of the people. 

 

 

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I agree with you that it is never going to happen

Why should it not happen? what problems other than logistics, would it create if all states held their primaries at the same time. 

I am sure that there might be unforeseen , and perhaps foreseen consequences, but would  these consequences  be worse than what we have now?  

Perhaps we need to go to a parliamentary system.(another thing that will never happen) 

all I know is that the current system is not working for the majority of the people. 

 

 

Well there is tradition. But I also think that choosing a nominee that might be president, for the office that is still (but now maybe not so much) the most powerful in the world requires some time. Not nearly as much time as U.S. election processes in general, but not all at once. By putting the candidates through the gauntlet in different parts of the country including how they react to wins and losses in various states reveals information to the public that they wouldn't have otherwise. There is also the natural winnowing of the field which is probably the most important part. So if you had a national one day election with the beginning huge number of democrats depending on exactly when it would have been Biden before and probably Bernie now and maybe someone else later. With the "winner" getting maybe 20 percent of the vote. That's not a consensus choice! That would leave a lot of people angry and feeling disenfranchised. Not saying the current system is without big flaws either. I really think the fact that a candidate as substantive as Booker was winnowed so early is a warning sign that adjustments need to be made.

 

HOWEVER, there is a way your idea of a one day primary could work. That would be for people to vote for first, second, third, and even fourth choices. Then there could be a formula based on stepped down choices to actually determine a real consensus pick with a one day national election. So Bernie might get 20 percent as first choice but when you factor in all the later choices, another candidate could be shown to actually have stronger consensus support and should be the winner. But I think people can get that would have the Bernie voters crying foul. So arguably even with that feature, not as good as primaries over time. 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Jingthing

[Berkshire]

34 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You are assuming the money rich people make is the governments by default. The government didn't earn it or more importantly create it. Tax cuts are nothing more than letting the rightful owner keep what is theirs. 

 

I got a tax cut out of the Trump cuts and many people who actually live in the USA and work here will tell you the same thing. The reason people are poor in the USA 90% of the time is due to very poor decisions they make. 

 

 

I understand your point about individual taxes, but the huge corporate tax cuts made no sense.  And it's massively adding to the deficit and debt.  The GOP's only solution will be to cut entitlements, which is basically a tax on the lower and middle class.  

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

That's a problem when Bernie is leading. But it isn't just the spending it's the fact that many of them want to actually destroy wealth. No idea what Bloomberg has to say so far. 

 

The dems really need to find the key to the battleground states if they hope to have any chance. I am saying that with no malice. Scale back all the grandiose plans and just try to win. Stop saying you are going to put people out of business and just try to win.

 

They can't stop trying to out do each other with big plans. Just pretend to be normal and win. 

 

Most dem tax plans don't bring the bottom closer to the top, they bring the middle closer to the bottom. 

 

You should be careful what you wish for if you live abroad using the USD. The dems start printing money you may find your money gets seriously devalued.

Let's see:

 

Most or all of the candidates think the income disparity in the US is wrong.  Most Americans agree.  I'm not aware of any candidate directly or indirectly calling for the destruction of wealth, whatever you mean by that.

 

Klobuchar might be the candidate to win the battleground states, or Buttigieg, or Biden, or Bloomberg.  I think all those states can be taken by a centrist.

 

Name a candidate that didn't have big plans.  Did Trump win with modest promises?

 

Please provide some analysis to support your claim about the Democrat's tax plans.

 

Democrats are going to start printing money?  Really?  Glenn Beck on Fox News was saying the same thing after Obama got elected.  One of his sponsors sold overpriced gold to the viewers who fell for it.

 

So long as the Federal Reserve stays independent and the US deficit is kept under control the dollar will not crash.  Trump is a threat to both those conditions.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You are assuming the money rich people make is the governments by default. The government didn't earn it or more importantly create it. Tax cuts are nothing more than letting the rightful owner keep what is theirs. 

 

I got a tax cut out of the Trump cuts and many people who actually live in the USA and work here will tell you the same thing. The reason people are poor in the USA 90% of the time is due to very poor decisions they make. 

 

 

You may have got some money in the tax cut, but that big deficit is running up the balance on what is effectively a credit card that taxpayers will have to eventually pay off.  Either you or your children are on the hook for it.