T And T Garage wrote on 12/04/19 at 12:21:29:



Why is that a positive ? I mean it could be, but it isn't neccesarily so in some cases.
I still think all Bernies ideas are like the Harry Potter books, lots and lots of magic required. Yea nice movie and book series, but lots of magic required. Oh yea, the operative word isnt' magic, that would be too unbelievable, its "free".
Good game, very good game Bernie talks.
Levitate and hover, Yoda will. Mixing metaphors, Srinath is.

Cool.
Srinath.

I thought that was a bad trait, I mean, are we not suppose to herald, and promote, bipartisan.......

Being rigid, and unmoving, well, that seems so Trump like, ya know, like elections have consequences    

srinath wrote on 12/04/19 at 16:09:12:


"All"?  I can see how some might appear that way, for those lacking intimacy with policy.   I can see how others could legitimately be judged so when predicted outcomes differ, accurate or not.   But "all"?   No.  "All" is the label of prejudice.

Since I was a kid in the 70's, working class wages have been suppressed below inflation, and radically below productivity.   This is a fundamental contributor to poverty, the shrinking middle class, and the healthcare crisis.  Sander's 2016 Presidential bid elevated his wage policy advocacy; as a consequence, popular support for such policies has seen minimum wage standards raised across the county, with corresponding benefits outpacing liabilities predicted by nay-sayers.

Hyperbolic noise obscures the reason Sanders and Warren have attained such purchase:  their advocacy responds to compelling governance and systemic failures.   While many of the policies responsible for those failures received diverse support, the Republican Party developed into the champion for many, and stalwart opponent to address of the resulting problems.   The reflexive support of Laissez-faire Capitalism above practical consequence is what has elevated Sanders and Warren to the stage center- that and their long record of advocacy.   Sadly, their consistency is the product of necessity in areas long lacking consolidated support.  Warren's singular role in building consumer protections was pragmatic- but however necessary, would not have manifested without a champion determined to forge a path.

There is an argument against everything.   OSHA.   Social Security.   A minimum wage above poverty.   The EPA.   While it may feel satisfying to make a play on words about magical thinking, it isn't compelling for any who seriously regard address of these problems as critical to our communities.

---

The Democrat Party is certainly not the totality of progressive ideals- but lacking a parliamentary system, it has become the big tent including the diversity unwelcome in the narrowing Republican arena.   The Democrat Party legacy no longer defines the Party- nor does the historic powerbase; while the Citizens United ruling has done profound damage to the practice of both the democratic franchise and governance, it has prompted candidates to differentiate themselves by grassroots funding.   Such grassroots support may prove a better predictor of required endurance beyond the primary.

---

Bloomberg has a hard road to the nomination, save by accident of circumstance- others drop out, with scandal or catastrophe striking other contenders in the final hours before the polls open.   Bloomberg has not built his name as a motive force for traveling to the polls; while his primary appeals of business success and moderate stance could win those favoring predictability over change, he will still need to demonstrate the ability to appeal to a broad enough coalition to inspire certain victory over the incumbent.   The time remaining to do so dwindles.   If he is able to qualify for the December debate, he may provide a stark enough contrast to differentiate himself- mostly to the detriment of relatively inexperienced moderates.

---

While Harris had a portion of my hope, her performance in this contest has relied overly much on sentiment; while some of her arguments have demonstrate wit, character, and understanding of appeal, these came at the expense of elucidating policy proposals.   It seemed to me debate performance feedback actually prompted Harris to further misplace focus.

---

At the primaries, Buttigieg's main challenge isn't his sexuality, but certainty: he lacks a record of achievement or advocacy of broad appeal.   While an impressive orator, he hasn't managed to convey policy in a way that allow for voters to predict how he would govern; this strategy of ambiguity act as foil to his moderately progressive stance.   We really can't tell to what degree he'd favor the use of military force, for example, as he has signaled a will to express principle via military engagment.   In many ways, his campaign resembles Obama's- without the experience, coordination of resources, and, most critically, reflexive appeal to esential portions of the electorate.    He has a high lift to the nomination.   I wonder if Ray's nuanced apprehension of scripture is broadly shared; with support for Trump by Evangelicals as indicator, that seems not to be- but they are not all of Christendom in the US.

I wonder if Ray's nuanced apprehension of scripture is broadly shared; with support for Trump by Evangelicals as indicator, that seems not to be- but they are not all of Christendom in the US.

Lets expand on that a wee bit.......

When you have the divorce rate, of those families professing to be believers in Christ, almost identical to the secular population.....      

Well......to me personally, I find it troubling, and warrants a dose of heavy skepticism, to what they say......

As I do with liberalism, when they preach tolerance, and exhibit none.

One final thought re: Pete and experience......

Of late, and rightly so, as with Obama, who you offered up, folks wanted to get away from that experienced politician, because we saw them not addressing the issues, but becoming heavily partisan, and he ran as that uniter....Hope and Change of what......????

The status quo. YES!

It got my vote, but then he got sucked into party first politics, and struggled through both administrations.

Trump, ditto.....outsider, no political baggage/experience, look who he had to beat in the primary, a Cruz and a Bush.....  

That is heavy political prowess and clout, entrench DC politics that is NOT working for most folk.....
As you can see by Trump's popularity OUTSIDE of DC and the BIG cities, in other words, common folk

I am not well versed in who Pete is, or what he represents, I do know very well, however, the Gay community, and in my sphere that does not present a obstacle personally, or to many folk I do know.....
But yes, there is some "in the church" who would hold it against him, I am afraid,and I believe, wrongly so......

He is the one to watch, but again his threats will come in his own party, surely first, anyway, how he handles that challenge will reveal a lot about the man, I believe.    

raydawg wrote on 12/05/19 at 08:02:16:


All else aside, this exclusion of the majority of the US population as not being "common folk" strikes me as *bigoted.   This contest of individual value between rural and urban peoples is synthetic, a legacy of that Slave-State holdover, the Electoral College, and the politics of division and advantage.   According to the US Census, over 80% of the US population resides in urban areas, and over 60% in large cities.   Most common folk in the United States live in a "big city".

The values of rural folk are legitimate- but not in this suggested elevation.

(*"bigoted" here does not reference hate, but "an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others", where 'belief' and 'opinion' equate to values.   Don't let use here trigger reaction, only qualify the observation.)

Mavigogun wrote on 12/05/19 at 09:12:52:


That sounds like an excellent way to waste an hour or 2. IMHO, then when he gets railroaded by Bloomberg or Biden by the DNC we can regret what we lost.
Cool.
Srinath.

Mavigogun wrote on 12/05/19 at 09:51:58:


I always care about immigration policy - as in - I don't want one. Throw all of them out and stop bringing in legal laborers and IT workers and nurses and everyone else under the cover of "economic expansion". Adding more people to the workforce by any means necessary only works for the corporatists, and for the working man, it lowers wages and raises cost of living. The biggest corporations in the country own large swaths of real estate, especially apartment complexes and trailer parks. Brining in workers to work at a different arm of the same company means those corporations can pay lower wages and charge them more in terms of rent. How could a democratic leaning person not see that big corporations (like amazon, google, BOA, Wellsfargo, JPMC Citi etc) do this in a nearly unchecked fashion. BOA owns parking lots near their offices, they get you for parking as well. Some new tech isn't as divested in real estate, but they're definitely part of the supply side problem bringing in several 1000 both as direct employees as well as sub contracted from other vendors. Much of this has been blamed on "shrinking work force" and Economic expansion, basically its just an excuse to move $$$ from the likes of Kmart, target and sears to Amazon, amazon and amazon. We don't need this crap, apparently people were alive in the 70's and 80's as well, and oddly enough happy too. My neighborhood Kmart looked dingy and dirty, I loved it all the same as much as a Kmart can be loved, till I got a bloody ticket sitting in that parking lot (the cop followed me down the street for having CA tags in NC and that Kmart just happened to be the easiest spot to pull in)

Adding more "americans" dilutes the value of each American. I was clueless in the years I wandered through that door, but getting more and more acutely aware of it with each passing year.

Brining people to any cold country multiplies 10-30X the co2 emissions. You remember that John Oliver's clip about a wide open corn field as a comeback to trump's "we're full" The simple thing is, we can take those people who want in and put them in that corn field. They cant burn, build, drive, or do anything else. If you're bothered about co2 - build a house like in US out of wood and dry wall concrete etc, you cut a bunch of trees, heat your house, again co2, drive to work - and the biggest ongoing emissions. Seriously we're not full, we're frozen and Greta Thunberg has told us "how dare us" fill up the air with more co2 and take down more trees. That corn field is there and empty because we cant afford the co2.

How can you on one had say you care about environment etc etc and then encourage this monster scale de forest and burn fuel idea.
Climate science isn't under debate, the solution is.

I saw Bernie's ideas in 16, they were fine, oddly Bernie or Bust crowd likely sat it out or voted for Libertarian or constitution etc. I am hoping to not get too deep into any dem so I don't feel robbed when they railroad who ever they don't control.

Cool.
Srinath.