Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
TheCid

2020 Election

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

In reference to my earlier post with my friends stating that they felt that Sanders and Biden are "too old", they really mean not healthy enough rather than just elderly. Sanders had an obvious cold so he sounded worse than usual, and Biden, with his bleeding eye the other night at the climate debate, as well as his somewhat discombobulated speaking manner and increasing verbal gaffes, came across as infirm.

I think care needs to be taken, because with certain groups, certain words are buzzwords/codewords, like "shrill," "shiftless," "pushy," whatever. Words that are acceptable in wide conversation, but in other contexts can be used to target certain groups. I think with seniors, the codewords may be related to health and memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Swithin said:

I think care needs to be taken, because with certain groups, certain words are buzzwords/codewords, like "shrill," "shiftless," "pushy," whatever. Words that are acceptable in wide conversation, but in other contexts can be used to target certain groups. I think with seniors, the codewords may be related to health and memory.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean that the candidate's health issues should not be a factor, or only tying their health issues into their age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean that the candidate's health issues should not be a factor, or only tying their health issues into their age?

I think if it's a factor that could seriously affect their conduct of office, the public needs to know about it, whatever their age. But I haven't seen that with either Sanders or Biden. Senator McCaskill had breast cancer. Can you imagine anyone saying she was unfit for office because of it? And of course there was FDR.

All politicians say things, then contradict themselves. To a younger opponent, Castro might have said "flip-flopped," or something like that, rather than forgetful, which justifiably got him (Castro) into trouble.

[My congressman, Jerry Nadler, whom I have great admiration for, was sick a while back and had laparoscopic stomach surgery to help him lose weight. I think he may not be that well at present, as I've seen him at the medical center where my doctors are.] 

Btw, I am against Pete Buttigieg, because he worked for McKinsey & Co. Now that's a serious illness!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Btw, I am against Pete Buttigieg, because he worked for McKinsey & Co. Now that's a serious illness!

McKinsey & Co. ?

Share this post


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

Skip to scandals.  If you go to significant current/former employees, Buttigieg is not listed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey_%26_Company

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey_%26_Company#Notable_current_and_former_employees

It looks like the massive corruption at that company was in full when Buttigieg joined them out of Oxford.  It would be nice if someone asked him to explain why he joined the company, what he knew about them and exactly what he worked on while there.  Reading his biography it looks like he left them to join the military.  If he doesn't have some damn good answers I can see Swithin's point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

It looks like the massive corruption at that company was in full when Buttigieg joined them out of Oxford.  It would be nice if someone asked him to explain why he joined the company, what he knew about them and exactly what he worked on while there.  Reading his biography it looks like he left them to join the military.  If he doesn't have some damn good answers I can see Swithin's point.

It's not the corruption (which I didn't know about) that puts me off Buittigieg, it's the fact that he worked for them at all. I've had dealings with McKinsey & Co. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Swithin said:

It's not the corruption (which I didn't know about) that puts me off Buittigieg, it's the fact that he worked for them at all. I've had dealings with McKinsey & Co. 

Maybe so.  But it would be good to give him the opportunity to explain himself.

Right out of school I worked for someone who I thought had integrity.  He complained about his competitor saying that he stole wages from his young workers, took projects that he did no work on and thus stole credits from younger workers.  I later found out after being taken advantage of that his competitor was the man of the highest integrity and that he himself was guilty of all of the things he accused the other of.  I'm saying this because one should not necessarily be tarred because of taking a job with a dubious employer when one is young and eager to make a mark.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Maybe so.  But it would be good to give him the opportunity to explain himself.

Right out of school I worked for someone who I thought had integrity.  He complained about his competitor saying that he stole wages from his young workers, took projects that he did no work on and thus stole credits from younger workers.  I later found out after being taken advantage of that his competitor was the man of the highest integrity and that he himself was guilty of all of the things he accused the other of.  I'm saying this because one should not necessarily be tarred because of taking a job with a dubious employer when one is young and eager to make a mark.

Sometimes you have no idea what your employer is doing or has done when you are starting out at a low level.  If Buttigieg was involved in something or should have had knowledge of it, then that is another thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Maybe so.  But it would be good to give him the opportunity to explain himself.

Right out of school I worked for someone who I thought had integrity.  He complained about his competitor saying that he stole wages from his young workers, took projects that he did no work on and thus stole credits from younger workers.  I later found out after being taken advantage of that his competitor was the man of the highest integrity and that he himself was guilty of all of the things he accused the other of.  I'm saying this because one should not necessarily be tarred because of taking a job with a dubious employer when one is young and eager to make a mark.

That makes sense, but it's not exactly what I mean. In my dealings with McKinsey it wasn't a case of anything illegal; it's just that the whole gist of the company represented a kind of approach that I disapproved of. McKinsey tends to attract a certain sort of person -- and all the the people I dealt with were young and bushy-tailed. 

I don't think I'm prejudiced against any group, but actually I'm afraid I am prejudiced against anyone who has worked for McKinsey. As a gay man, I would like to have considered Buttigieg, but I won't (for reasons other than McKinsey as well). 

(Btw, I think McKinsey got a big Brexit contract from the UK government's Brexit department.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Swithin said:

That makes sense, but it's not exactly what I mean. In my dealings with McKinsey it wasn't a case of anything illegal; it's just that the whole gist of the company represented a kind of approach that I disapproved of. McKinsey tends to attract a certain sort of person -- and all the the people I dealt with were young and bushy-tailed. 

I don't think I'm prejudiced against any group, but actually I'm afraid I am prejudiced against anyone who has worked for McKinsey. As a gay man, I would like to have considered Buttigieg, but I won't (for reasons other than McKinsey as well). 

(Btw, I think McKinsey got a big Brexit contract from the UK government's Brexit department.)

He needs to answer questions about working for this company for sure.  Why he joined the company, what he knew about them and exactly what he worked on while there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Sanders now has yet another plan, this one for housing,  that only cost 2.5 trillion over 10 years.

This one would be financed by raising the taxes on the .01% (a tenth of 1%).

What's next:   No Fed taxes for anyone NOT in the top 10% and making the top 10% pay 95% of their earnings?  

 (because it would take such a tax plan to pay for all of the things Sanders is promising).

     

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

Well Sanders now has yet another plan, this one for housing,  that only cost 2.5 trillion over 10 years.

This one would be financed by raising the taxes on the .01% (a tenth of 1%).

What's next:   No Fed taxes for anyone NOT in the top 10% and making the top 10% pay 95% of their earnings?  

 (because it would take such a tax plan to pay for all of the things Sanders is promising).

     

 

I suspect you are guessing at this.  According to Sanders the top 1% holds 95% of the wealth in America.  That is a lot.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

I suspect you are guessing at this.  According to Sanders the top 1% holds 95% of the wealth in America.  That is a lot.

There is a difference between wealth and income.  As for as I know Warren is the only one who has proposed taxing wealth.  America does not tax wealth, at least not that I am aware of.  They do have property taxes which could be wealth taxes, but really aren't considered as such.

Below is from 2017, but probably still close to accurate.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/economy/nations-top-1-percent-now-have-greater-wealth-than-the-bottom-90-percent/#targetText=The wealthiest 1 percent of,federal Survey of Consumer Finances.

The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country’s wealth, according to a new paper by economist Edward N. Woolf. That share is higher than it has been at any point since at least 1962, according to Woolf’s data, which comes from the federal Survey of Consumer Finances.

The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America — 90 slices of pie! That’s exactly 4½slices per person, nearly triple their “ideal” share according to Norton and Ariely’s survey respondents. Their average net worth? $3 million.

That leaves just 10 percent of the pie for the remaining 80 percent of the populace. The next 20 percent of households (average net worth: $273,600) help themselves to eight slices, while the middle 20 percent ($81,700 net worth, on average) split a measly two slices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/465667-sanders-trump-democrats-battle-2020/

Slavoj Zizek – Truth is many Democrat ‘moderates’ prefer Trump to Sanders in 2020 White House race

Many so-called Democrat ‘moderates’ would prefer Donald Trump to retain the US Presidency than for Bernie Sanders, or another genuine leftist, to defeat him.

In this sense they are mirror-images of establishment Republicans, such as George W Bush and Colin Powell, who publicly expressed support for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 contest.  

In the course of this week’s heated Democratic Party primary debate, former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper warned that “you might as well FedEx the election to Donald Trump” if the party adopts radical platforms. Such as Bernie Sanders’ ‘Medicare for All’ plan, the Green New Deal and other game-changing initiatives. 

The ensuing passionate exchange clearly exposed the two camps in the Democratic Party: the ‘moderates’ (representatives of the party establishment whose main face is Joe Biden), and the more progressive democratic socialists (Bernie Sanders, perhaps Elizabeth Warren, plus the four young congresswomen baptized by Trump as the “Dem Squad”, and whose most popular face is now Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.) 

This struggle is arguably the most important political battle taking place today anywhere in the world.

It may appear that the moderates make a convincing case. After all, are democratic socialists not simply too radical to win over the majority of voters? Is the true struggle not the contest for undecided moderate voters who will never endorse a Muslim, like Ilhan Omar who keeps her hair covered? And did Trump himself not count on this when he brutally attacked the ‘Squad,’ thereby obliging the entire Democratic party to show solidarity with the four girls, elevating them to the status of party symbols? 

For the Democratic Party centrists, the important thing is to get rid of Trump and bring back the normal liberal-democratic hegemony which his election disrupted.  

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been said that a right-wing government could be elected in the United States but not a left-wing government. I think I believe that, which is why I hope Biden is the candidate. Progressive programs are under attack at the moment, related to important programs, the environment, healthcare, voting rights, the Supreme Court, etc. We can't risk another four years of Trump, but we will get him back, if we are not careful.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Swithin said:

It has been said that a right-wing government could be elected in the United States but not a left-wing government. I think I believe that, which is why I hope Biden is the candidate. Progressive programs are under attack at the moment, related to important programs, the environment, healthcare, voting rights, the Supreme Court, etc. We can't risk another four years of Trump, but we will get him back, if we are not careful.

 

 

Uh,  there is no fixed definition of 'right-wing' or 'left-wing'.    Instead partisans tend to define the other side as 'extreme' by default.   E.g. my guts tell me the majority of Republicans would say that under Obama the USA had a left-wing government.    (just like Dems would say the USA had a right-wing one under Reagan,  or even the two Bush terms).     I.e. it is all relative to where ONE is at.

For both parties,  what strategy is more successful;  going with the 'moderate' who often lacks hardcore supporters (i.e.  a large and devoted base),  or someone more 'extreme',  who often do have a loyal hardcore base?      Play it safe or go-for-it?       My crystal ball is much too cloudy at this time.

Biden clearly looks like the safe choice but he could have major meltdowns during the general election campaign that in hindsight would say otherwise.

But back to your point:  Is the USA ready to elect a progressive women like Warren?    Sadly I'm not very confident.

 

    

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voter anger may spell the end for Trump and Biden

"......These results are problematic for both Trump and Biden’s presidential chances in 2020. Trump, who rode a wave of anger to the Republican nomination and the White House in 2016, appears to be using the same campaign playbook in 2020. This strategy, however, may backfire on him, making him a one-term president.

Biden, running as a moderate and one who wants to restore normalcy to politics — a return to pre-Trump times — may also find that the electorate does not share his nostalgia for the pre-2016 political world.

During the last two decades, voters have shown little patience for political results and little hesitancy in voting political parties out of power.......

......As the reality of the primary campaign develops, candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are much better equipped to appeal to the Democratic electorate’s desire for change.

We should expect to see volatility in American politics well into the future. Anger and dissatisfaction are difficult to change, even during a period of high employment.

There are different fundamentals driving these feelings — cultural and demographic changes affecting the country, record income and wealth gaps, and a polarized media environment stoking hyper-partisanship...

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/462549-voter-anger-may-spell-the-end-for-trump-and-biden

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read an article in this week's The Week magazine about Mitch McConnell.  His reelection campaign is arguably the most significant in 2020, including the presidential.  He probably has more control over US government than any member of the Senate ever has.  He has had more long-term influence over America than Trump by insuring that Trump's nominations are approved and that Dem bills never reach the floor for discussion, much less a vote.

As he has shown, even if a Dem gets to be president, but the GOPers keep control of Senate, he is likely to block almost all nominations for as long as it takes. The same with bills coming out of the House.

It is imperative that the Dems focus as much, if nor more, on getting control of the Senate and defeating McConnell than on defeating Trump.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first Winthrop [University, Rock Hill, S.C.] Poll [of likely S.C. Dem primary voters] looking at the 2020 primary candidates. 

Biden drew 37% of the votes among those surveyed.

Among African American Democrats and Democratic-leaning African Americans, Biden earned 46% of the votes, according to the poll.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren earned 17%, Sen. Bernie Sanders 8%, Sen. Kamala Harris 7% and the remaining 15 candidates each earned less than 5% support in the poll . 

Biden's lead is on par with polling across the nation. RealClearPolitics.com has Biden averaging about 38.7% support with Warren averaging 15.7% in polls held between Aug. 9 and Sept. 26. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nancy Pelosi is coming to Greenvile S.C. for a fundraiser for the Democratic Party.  She will be at an event where Octoberfest is being celebrated nearby.  The GOPers are promising to rally the troops and have protest demonstrations.

Greenville SC is the heart of the reddest part of S.C. 

https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/election/article235677367.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nancy Pelosi came to Greenville S.C. to raise money for Democrats.  Some Dems avoided attending for fear of losing their elections!  Within a couple of days, the local Republican Parties were able to get 800 or so people to line up in protest.

This will further tie Pelosi, Warren, Sanders, AOC, et al to Dems in S.C.  Will make winning elections more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


© 2019 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...