TheCid

2020 Election

484 posts in this topic

19 minutes ago, Swithin said:

I don't know. She's been on MSNBC so much, that's mostly where I've seen her. If she doesn't break through, it may be because it's such a crowded field. She was the best Democrat in the Kavanaugh hearings.

Well we both don't know;   She finished 6th in the recent Iowa poll (receiving 2%);   I would think a moderate like her would have done better in that state.     But yea,  it is early,  so I'm hoping she gets enough support to be part of the debates,  does well there,  and this leads her to being the top female in the field.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Swithin said:

Maybe a woman President has to come from the Republicans, just as the first Black Senator came from the Republicans: Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, who was a liberal Republican. In his race for Senate, Brooke defeated the most old-line Yankee WASP of old-line WASPs: Governor Endicott Peabody, a man who said he wouldn't even authorize the death penalty for the Boston Strangler. Peabody's mother was one of the great New England activists. She was arrested in Florida for attempting to integrate a segregated restaurant. 

You have to understand that Brooke's Republican Party is the exact opposite of today's Republican Party.  He was a liberal from probably the most liberal state in the nation.

As it stands now, the only elected Black senator in the US Senate is a Republican - Tim Scott of S.C.  However, he was first appointed by Republican Gov. Nikki Haley when the sitting senator resigned.  Prior to that he had been the US Representative from the Charleston S.C. area.  The district just elected the first Dem US Rep. in decades, but that was because Trump and the GOP screwed up.

11 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Well we both don't know;   She finished 6th in the recent Iowa poll (receiving 2%);   I would think a moderate like her would have done better in that state.     But yea,  it is early,  so I'm hoping she gets enough support to be part of the debates,  does well there,  and this leads her to being the top female in the field.

 

Read a report in local paper from Associated Press that Buttigieg was appealing to the LGBTQ, racial and ethnic minorities to become more active.   Or as he called them "others."   Of course he was speaking at an LGBTQ meeting.

My favorite for most qualified is still Klobuchar.  

The sad story is that the early primaries and the strange Iowa caucuses tend to eliminate some of the best in both parties.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard Kamala Harris on either CBS or NBC News.  Her "Big Idea" is to give teachers a $13,500 pay raise because comparably educated professionals make that much more.  Forget what her total cost would be, but it was many billions over ten years.  Another issue is when teachers get pay raises, administrators have to get one also.

What is a comparably educated professional?  If you are talking private sector, that is a whole different ball game, as in apples to corn.  What is their pay compared to comparably educated state and local government employees?  Based on my experience, teachers make more.  In addition, teachers have higher education levels because they receive pay raises just for completing X number of hours of courses or Y graduate degrees.  Advanced degrees for educators are some of the easiest to get.  I know; I've got two of them and 3/4's of a third one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Just heard Kamala Harris on either CBS or NBC News.  Her "Big Idea" is to give teachers a $13,500 pay raise because comparably educated professionals make that much more.  Forget what her total cost would be, but it was many billions over ten years.  Another issue is when teachers get pay raises, administrators have to get one also.

What is a comparably educated professional?  If you are talking private sector, that is a whole different ball game, as in apples to corn.  What is their pay compared to comparably educated state and local government employees?  Based on my experience, teachers make more.  In addition, teachers have higher education levels because they receive pay raises just for completing X number of hours of courses or Y graduate degrees.  Advanced degrees for educators are some of the easiest to get.  I know; I've got two of them and 3/4's of a third one.

The Feds shouldn't have any say over teachers pay or any school official pay;    That is the type of Federal overreach that I oppose.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The Feds shouldn't have any say over teachers pay or any school official pay;    That is the type of Federal overreach that I oppose.   

I'm not opposed to Federal money for education.  Heck, look at how many things at the state and local level that receive Fed money now.

But, it does usually come with strings attached.

My problem with Harris' Big Idea is that it will cost far more than she thinks, there is no money for it and raising taxes won't help pay for it.  It will also begin the slippery slope of Federal money to raise pay for state and local government employees, law enforcement, medical personnel, nursing home employees, ad. infinitum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TheCid said:

I'm not opposed to Federal money for education.  Heck, look at how many things at the state and local level that receive Fed money now.

But, it does usually come with strings attached.

My problem with Harris' Big Idea is that it will cost far more than she thinks, there is no money for it and raising taxes won't help pay for it.  It will also begin the slippery slope of Federal money to raise pay for state and local government employees, law enforcement, medical personnel, nursing home employees, ad. infinitum. 

I'm opposed to Fed money for most thing that a state should be responsible.   Fed money for education is just taking money from states that spend 'enough' money on education and giving it to those states that don't (which are often Red states).   Note that citizens in Red states like Kansas and Texas have had to sue the state because the state isn't spending enough on schools.  Citizens won both cases.   I don't wish for the CA funds provided to the Feds to be given to these states that set education as a low priority. 

(and note I can understand why other states would want to help CA provided education to illegal immigrants,  which we do,,,,  even college!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I'm opposed to Fed money for most thing that a state should be responsible.   Fed money for education is just taking money from states that spend 'enough' money on education and giving it to those states that don't (which are often Red states).   Note that citizens in Red states like Kansas and Texas have had to sue the state because the state isn't spending enough on schools.  Citizens won both cases.   I don't wish for the CA funds provided to the Feds to be given to these states that set education as a low priority. 

(and note I can understand why other states would want to help CA provided education to illegal immigrants,  which we do,,,,  even college!).

Interesting.  So you believe that the rich states should never help the poor states, even though we are one country and one people?  So, should the same rule apply for natural disasters?  Let CA pay for its forest fires, Puerto Rico for its hurricanes, the Mississippi valley states for flooding, etc.?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Interesting.  So you believe that the rich states should never help the poor states, even though we are one country and one people?  So, should the same rule apply for natural disasters?  Let CA pay for its forest fires, Puerto Rico for its hurricanes, the Mississippi valley states for flooding, etc.?

Helping with natural disasters is different since a state can't prevent those (well in most cases but if states don't spend on maintenance then they shouldn't be bailed out by the Feds).

Schools are the responsibility of the state and therefore the citizen's of said state;  How much they wish to be taxed for schools should be up to the citizens of the state,  period.

PS:  I also believe the best way to diffuse the culture-wars is to focus on state-rights instead of a Fed-solution-for-all.    Most of the Dem candidates are pushing for the Fed-solution-for-all.      I won't try to dictate how someone in the South lives, as long as they don't try to do that to the citizens here in CA.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Helping with natural disasters is different since a state can't prevent those (well in most cases but if states don't spend on maintenance then they shouldn't be bailed out by the Feds).

Schools are the responsibility of the state and therefore the citizen's of said state;  How much they wish to be taxed for schools should be up to the citizens of the state,  period.

PS:  I also believe the best way to diffuse the culture-wars is to focus on state-rights instead of a Fed-solution-for-all.    Most of the Dem candidates are pushing for the Fed-solution-for-all.      I won't try to dictate how someone in the South lives, as long as they don't try to do that to the citizens here in CA.

 

 

OK, so what about highways, airports and other infrastructure?  To include water, sewer, rivers, etc.  National Parks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TheCid said:

OK, so what about highways, airports and other infrastructure?  To include water, sewer, rivers, etc.  National Parks.

Highways;  this is already covered with the federal highway system.   State and local roads should be financed by the state \ local revenues.    Airports;  I can see multiple states getting together to fund an airport that citizens from those states would use,  but Fed funds should be limited.   Same with infrastructure that does NOT cross state boundaries.   

The overall point here is that states set their own tax rates and associated spending priorities.    It isn't right for a state to have really low taxes (mostly to benefit the well off),  resulting to NOT providing enough funds to various needs, and then use taxes collected from citizens from other states to fund what they didn't wish to tax and fund.

E.g.  CA is going to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants.  This will cost CA tax players billions.   Other states shouldn't have to help fund this foolish initiative.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Highways;  this is already covered with the federal highway system.   State and local roads should be financed by the state \ local revenues.    Airports;  I can see multiple states getting together to fund an airport that citizens from those states would use,  but Fed funds should be limited.   Same with infrastructure that does NOT cross state boundaries.   

The overall point here is that states set their own tax rates and associated spending priorities.    It isn't right for a state to have really low taxes (mostly to benefit the well off),  resulting to NOT providing enough funds to various needs, and then use taxes collected from citizens from other states to fund what they didn't wish to tax and fund.

E.g.  CA is going to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants.  This will cost CA tax players billions.   Other states shouldn't have to help fund this foolish initiative.  

A multitude of state and local roads are actually part of the Federal highway system.  There are state and local roads that are not part of that system, but they do receive funding from the Feds - comes out of the gasoline tax that everyone pays regardless of which roads they drive on.

I doubt there are more than a dozen airports in any state that are not used by visiting planes (and passengers) from other states.

While infrastructure may not cross state lines, it's "products" do.  Many (most?) sewer systems empties into a body of water that flows into other states or into the ocean.  Run-off from landfills eventually gets to rivers.  If a state does not provide adequate prevention of diseases and other problems and infected citizens travel to another state and infect them, that's OK?

Should the taxes collected in Malibu only be used for Malibu?  Should rich counties not share their largess with other counties in CA?

We could go on all day, but I think everyone is familiar with our positions now.  I am not for Big government, but for a national government that does do it's best for America as one nation and one people - Americans.  Besides we are way past the small government stage.  When it gets to Congress, even the most ardent libertarian conservative Republican is going to argue for funds for his district or state.

Oh, and states rights is what we fought the Civil War over, at least in major portion.  States Rights is the basis of segregation, voter suppression, ad infinitum.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, TheCid said:

A multitude of state and local roads are actually part of the Federal highway system.  There are state and local roads that are not part of that system, but they do receive funding from the Feds - comes out of the gasoline tax that everyone pays regardless of which roads they drive on.

I doubt there are more than a dozen airports in any state that are not used by visiting planes (and passengers) from other states.

While infrastructure may not cross state lines, it's "products" do.  Many (most?) sewer systems empties into a body of water that flows into other states or into the ocean.  Run-off from landfills eventually gets to rivers.  If a state does not provide adequate prevention of diseases and other problems and infected citizens travel to another state and infect them, that's OK?

Should the taxes collected in Malibu only be used for Malibu?  Should rich counties not share their largess with other counties in CA?

We could go on all day, but I think everyone is familiar with our positions now.  I am not for Big government, but for a national government that does do it's best for America as one nation and one people - Americans.  Besides we are way past the small government stage.  When it gets to Congress, even the most ardent libertarian conservative Republican is going to argue for funds for his district or state.

Oh, and states rights is what we fought the Civil War over, at least in major portion.  States Rights is the basis of segregation, voter suppression, ad infinitum.

Well we are failing to communicate yet again.   Anyhow,   I want a very limited Federal government.   It isn't about small government but about a small FED government,  with most power being held by the states.

Of course you site the negative things about state-rights,  but state-rights has also advanced liberal social causes.     There is no concept of 'one nation and one people',  instead there is a concept of the United States of America.    Feds power should be limited to foreign policy and national security.    

PS:  I'm sure you realize that your POV is leading to the major divisions the USA has now.    To me going back to state's right is the only way to save the union.   (since there is little chance that 75% or more of Americans can agree on any major policy issues at the Federal level).

   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

There is no concept of 'one nation and one people',  instead there is a concept of the United States of America.    Feds power should be limited to foreign policy and national security.    

PS:  I'm sure you realize that your POV is leading to the major divisions the USA has now.    To me going back to state's right is the only way to save the union.   (since there is little chance that 75% or more of Americans can agree on any major policy issues at the Federal level).

   

 

We really are failing to communicate.  "One nation" is part of the the Pledge of Allegiance for a reason.  The Civil War was fought primarily to restore the United States to one nation.  The one people is Americans.

Limiting Federal power to foreign policy and national security would return us to pre-1783, the adoption of the present Constitution.  The Constitution clearly states that the Federal government is to provide many things, one of  which is to promote the "common welfare" of all Americans.

I have said that our political system is different from most (all) others because we are the United States and significant powers are "reserved" to the states.  However, that does not mean that the states are not subservient to the Federal government, if the Federal government chooses to intervene.

My POV is exactly opposite of what you imply.  The states rights POV is the one leading to major divisions.  The one that enabled slavery, segregation, denial of voting rights to anyone except whites, Jim Crow laws, subjegation of women to the will of men and thousands of other inhumane actions.

The debate is over what the Federal government should do, not whether the Federal government or state governments should do it.  BIG difference.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

commie sanders and he is a commie has just started pushing 'democratic socialism. he and others are that party's big problem. their overriding imperative must be defeating trump...so some of these lulus start advocating socialism.

smart.:D

first, sanders is one of those really dishonest types. he puts a big I after his name but caucuses with the democrats and runs as a democrat so what is the big capital I for? to con those into thinking he is an independent? how on earth how? his new gimmick is that it's alright to be for 'democratic socialism' to be against trump's corporate socialism.

translation: socialism vs. capitalism.

:lol:

the more socialists change the more they stay the same.

Bernie shoulda gone into penology. he can redistribute the wealth of the wardens and the screws while liberating the cons with the power of the vote.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NipkowDisc said:

commie sanders and he is a commie has just started pushing 'democratic socialism. he and others are that party's big problem. their overriding imperative must be defeating trump...so some of these lulus start advocating socialism.

smart.:D

first, sanders is one of those really dishonest types. he puts a big I after his name but caucuses with the democrats and runs as a democrat so what is the big capital I for? to con those into thinking he is an independent? how on earth how? his new gimmick is that it's alright to be for 'democratic socialism' to be against trump's corporate socialism.

translation: socialism vs. capitalism.

:lol:

the more socialists change the more they stay the same.

Bernie shoulda gone into penology. he can redistribute the wealth of the wardens and the screws while liberating the cons with the power of the vote.

:D

You really should go back and finish high school.  Sanders believes in democratic socialism, not communism.  There is a big, big difference.  Also there is a big difference between democratic socialism and pure socialism.

Regardless, Sanders was speaking of the corporate socialism practiced by the Republican Party and Donald Trump and his cabinet appointees.  It is real.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

All 20 of them????  Even 10 one night and 10 the next are way too many.  All these candidates are really going to be a boon to Trump and the Republicans.  Talk about a disorganized party!

"I am not a member of any organized political party - I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

Even more true today than it was then.  That is one thing you can say for the GOPers of 2016, they got organized behind one candidate, sorry though he is.  The Dems didn't and probably won't in 2020 either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

All 20 of them????  Even 10 one night and 10 the next are way too many.  All these candidates are really going to be a boon to Trump and the Republicans.  Talk about a disorganized party!

"I am not a member of any organized political party - I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

Even more true today than it was then.  That is one thing you can say for the GOPers of 2016, they got organized behind one candidate, sorry though he is.  The Dems didn't and probably won't in 2020 either.

I'm wondering if part of that may be due to the flack from the last election, which was viewed as a "fix" for Clinton. Now the DNC doesn't want to be viewed as "choosing" the candidate, regardless of how much it may damage the eventual candidate's standing.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:

 

Yea,  his campaign needs a major caffeine injection.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Yea,  his campaign needs a major caffeine injection.

  

He could always ask Butt_Plug for some. I'm sure he'd be happy to oblige.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David RothkopfVerified account @djrothkopf

 

The intellectual vitality of the Democratic Party right now is coming from our progressives.

The center, of which I was long a part, is withering, offering only the formulations of the past that have produced much of the inequality & many of the divisions and challenges of today........

 

.... These policies have left 90 percent of Americans out of the money, excluded from the real upside in US growth, since the 1970s. They ended the period of the 1940s and 50s and 60s when parents could expect their kids to have better educations, better jobs, better lives. ....

Now, the vast majority in America recognize that the system no longer works for them, that it is, as @ewarren rightly notes, "rigged."

Anger with that is what Trump tapped into...but of course, he did it as a con, as a way to win support for even more radical theft by the rich. ...

s ee: https://twitter.com/djrothkopf/status/1140260948885852160

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mr6666 said:

David RothkopfVerified account @djrothkopf

 

The intellectual vitality of the Democratic Party right now is coming from our progressives.

The center, of which I was long a part, is withering, offering only the formulations of the past that have produced much of the inequality & many of the divisions and challenges of today........

 

.... These policies have left 90 percent of Americans out of the money, excluded from the real upside in US growth, since the 1970s. They ended the period of the 1940s and 50s and 60s when parents could expect their kids to have better educations, better jobs, better lives. ....

Now, the vast majority in America recognize that the system no longer works for them, that it is, as @ewarren rightly notes, "rigged."

Anger with that is what Trump tapped into...but of course, he did it as a con, as a way to win support for even more radical theft by the rich. ...

s ee: https://twitter.com/djrothkopf/status/1140260948885852160

 

I don't agree with the above at all.  90% have been left out since the 1970's?   Kids today do have far superior educations than in the 60's and before.  Far more technical school, community college, college and university graduates than ever before.

As for the progressive's promises, all sound good.  Questions are will they really be able to fix problems and how will they pay for it. Soak the Rich is not the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

I don't agree with the above at all.  90% have been left out since the 1970's?   Kids today do have far superior educations than in the 60's and before.  Far more technical school, community college, college and university graduates than ever before.

As for the progressive's promises, all sound good.  Questions are will they really be able to fix problems and how will they pay for it. Soak the Rich is not the answer.

One can derive almost any type of stat to show income disparity;  note the key term used to get this 90%;   real upside in US growth;      I.e. the statistician defined 'real' in a way to get to that 90%.

Anyhow income disparity is larger than it has ever been;  i.e. concentration of wealth by the top 1% is at an all time high.    While we may not be at the 'let them eat cake' stage,  we know what happens when a majority of a county's population FEELS they are at that stage.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us