Clinton 2020

[my_2cents]

but I think a strong Dem can rally the base while also highlighting issues that matter to the non-ideological voter without asking voters to accept a dramatic shift in their perception of America.

I understand this point. However, I would argue that those voters tend to support the policies progressives are putting forward. Plus, someone like Sanders comes across as genuine and not disingenuous as some of the establishment-style candidates do. This too helps with those types of voters IMO.

The notion that non-ideological voters or independents or whatever you want to call them aren't going to support a strong progressive is wrong in my opinion. I think enough of them (to form a broad coalition) would support a strong progressive even given the chance.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Why don't you?

I think it's well established my getting through to you is completely beyond my reach.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I think it's well established my getting through to you is completely beyond my reach.

If you would tell him you’re Hillary he would be all ears!

 

[MR. TANNER BOYLE]

Bloomberg is the most sane of the group for sure, but zero chance he could unite with his insane position on 2A and general nanny state behavior.

Very true, I was definitely thinking more from a sanity perspective

 

[Bitter Creek]

I would say they inspire more energy/passion which is great in a primary run. That energy isn't necessary at this point to win in a general and in fact gives the opponent something to build fear and loathing around.

That and I am not a big fan of the economic policies of Warren/Sanders.

If the choice is Trump or Warren/Sanders then I will vote for the Dem. Quite confident they would be just fine if elected as the system isn't built for radical change.

As divided as the country seems to be, I think it will come down to independents in swing states. Maybe even swing precincts within swing states.

 

[launch]

I think it's well established my getting through to you is completely beyond my reach.

You do seem to live in his head though.

 

[Pokeabear]

Independent here, I do not want Hillary back in the race. It is not her fault but she’ll the Russians have successfully tainted her name like they are Biden’s right now.

 

[2012Bearcat]

You mean once they are scared by your right-wing fear tactics, correct?

The American people make it clear over and over again in polls they support these policies. I know you don't want to accept the polls but nevertheless, that is what they show.

Yea the price tags that come along with those wonderful utopian policies tends to make sane people realize those policies are unaffordable.

 

[my_2cents]

Yea the price tags that come along with those wonderful utopian policies tends to make sane people realize those policies are unaffordable.

Nah when the price is easily explained.

All the right has is fear Bearcat. And it keeps people like you voting against your own interest every election.

 

[07pilt]

Yea the price tags that come along with those wonderful utopian policies tends to make sane people realize those policies are unaffordable.

We afford them today dummy, its just a question of who pays

 

[2012Bearcat]

We afford them today dummy, its just a question of who pays

No we don't pay anywhere near the same dollar amount. Since when has government done anything more efficiently than the private sector. Hell private insurance provides Medicare to millions of people for far less than the federal government does, so much so they offer more benefits than original Medicare.

 

[Ponca Dan]

We afford them today dummy, its just a question of who pays

This sentence makes no sense. If “we” afford them today, why is there any question about “who pays?” “We” pay, correct?

 

[07pilt]

This sentence makes no sense. If “we” afford them today, why is there any question about “who pays?” “We” pay, correct?

Yes so really it isn't that big of a change after all. We pay for healthcare. We pay for college. --> We pay for healthcare. We pay for college.

 

[07pilt]

No we don't pay anywhere near the same dollar amount. Since when has government done anything more efficiently than the private sector.

Literally all the time

Hell private insurance provides Medicare to millions of people for far less than the federal government does, so much so they offer more benefits than original Medicare.

lol. not true

 

[Ponca Dan]

Nah when the price is easily explained.

All the right has is fear Bearcat. And it keeps people like you voting against your own interest every election.

The problem is the price is not easily explained. The easy explanation to which you so easily fall prey is junior high spin, putting every possible best case scenario in play, even “tweaking” some of those scenarios to make it look even better.

 

[my_2cents]

The problem is the price is not easily explained.

It is and every policy that has been put forth has an explanation of how it will be paid. The right then steps in and tries to scare Americans regarding the policies or just flat out misrepresents the policies.

The right knows that fear motivates strongly in politics and that is why they use it. It is why Trump's whole political existence is wrapped up in fear, hate, and bigotry.

 

[07pilt]

The problem is the price is not easily explained. The easy explanation to which you so easily fall prey is junior high spin, putting every possible best case scenario in play, even “tweaking” some of those scenarios to make it look even better.

Ponca Dan you need to defend the price of the status quo

 

[Ponca Dan]

Yes so really it isn't that big of a change after all. We pay for healthcare. We pay for college. --> We pay for healthcare. We pay for college.

Well, that’s close, but just misses the mark. You aren’t admitting that the “we” to which you refer is really “they,” people you perceive should handle the load, not everybody (which is implied by the word “we”).

The change would involve the destruction of the liberty all of us would face in the pursuit of making “them” pay. The change would involve the elimination of choices freely made by free people to purchase products and services they deem necessary. A subtle and seemingly insignificant (and intentional) altering to the word “we” would in reality have a major impact on individual liberty, which is the historical imperative that has set our country apart from the rest.

 

[07pilt]

Well, that’s close, but just misses the mark. You aren’t admitting that the “we” to which you refer is really “they,” people you perceive should handle the load, not everybody (which is implied by the word “we”).

The change would involve the destruction of the liberty all of us would face in the pursuit of making “them” pay. The change would involve the elimination of choices freely made by free people to purchase products and services they deem necessary. A subtle and seemingly insignificant (and intentional) altering to the word “we” would in reality have a major impact on individual liberty, which is the historical imperative that has set our country apart from the rest.

Yeah we get it. It isn't Libertarian. But it is far from unaffordable.

 

[Ponca Dan]

It is and every policy that has been put forth has an explanation of how it will be paid. The right then steps in and tries to scare Americans regarding the policies or just flat out misrepresents the policies.

The right knows that fear motivates strongly in politics and that is why they use it. It is why Trump's whole political existence is wrapped up in fear, hate, and bigotry.

I understand that in your mind any objection to a Big Brother Government cannot be reasonably made, it can only be considered fear mongering from the horrible right wing. In my mind your prejudice can only stem from one of two things. Either you are young, have emotionally latched onto a world view, maybe the first one you encountered, it made sense to you so you have never bothered to investigate opposing viewpoints in a reasonable attempt to deepen your understanding of the world. You stopped there. Most of your Clinton-inspired talking points with which you share on this board leads me to think this is the actual reason for your intransigence. The other possibility (which I don’t want to believe) is you are really that intellectually challenged.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Ponca Dan you need to defend the price of the status quo

Why should I need to defend the price of the status quo? Where do you get the idea I like the status quo? The only difference between the status quo and your remedy is you just want to make it even more unworkable, more expensive, eliminate options and empower a whole new army of bureaucrats to lord over us.

 

[07pilt]

Why should I need to defend the price of the status quo? Where do you get the idea I like the status quo? The only difference between the status quo and your remedy is you just want to make it even more unworkable, more expensive, eliminate options and empower a whole new army of bureaucrats to lord over us.

Are you not advocating for the status quo? How do you look at that graph and think things will get more expensive and more bureaucratic?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Yeah we get it. It isn't Libertarian. But it is far from unaffordable.

What else could we afford but isn’t libertarian? Here’s one: we could afford non libertarian concentration/re-education camps for free thinkers! We could afford to have our military invade Canada and turn Canadians into our private servants! We could afford it, but it wouldn’t be libertarian.

 

[07pilt]

What else could we afford but isn’t libertarian? Here’s one: we could afford non libertarian concentration/re-education camps for free thinkers! We could afford to have our military invade Canada and turn Canadians into our private servants! We could afford it, but it wouldn’t be libertarian.

Yes and to argue against those things on affordability ground would be ceding the moral high ground.

 

[my_2cents]

I understand that in your mind any objection to a Big Brother Government cannot be reasonably made, it can only be considered fear mongering from the horrible right wing.

No, there are reasonable objections that can be made. However, usually, the right just engages in fear and misrepresentation. It is a lot easier for them politically speaking.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

The U. S. buck is the world's reserve currency. Should the buck lose such status, we're Greece. So far, we're not bothered by a $22 trillion national debt. I emphasize, so far.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Are you not advocating for the status quo? How do you look at that graph and think things will get more expensive and more bureaucratic?

I almost never advocate for the status quo. I thought you understood that. I advocate for liberty, for free people to make lifestyle decisions freely and without interference. The only economic system consistent with what I advocate is unfettered free market capitalism. Nothing about the status quo comes close. The status quo, to the extent any fool might call it capitalism, is crony capitalism, a mix of “capitalists” in bed with powerful political elites who enrich themselves and shield themselves from the same rules of conduct they enforce on the rest of us. In short it is a mild form of what you advocate.

 

[07pilt]

The U. S. buck is the world's reserve currency. Should the buck lose such status, we're Greece. So far, we're not bothered by a $22 trillion national debt. I emphasize, so far.

I have to object to this my friend. Status as a reserve currency has no material effect on the US's capacity to take on debt.

 

[Ponca Dan]

No, there are reasonable objections that can be made. However, usually, the right just engages in fear and misrepresentation. It is a lot easier for them politically speaking.

And, yet, you, when confronted with reasonable objections immediately resort to the “right-wing, Fox News inspired, fear mongering” canard without exception..

 

[07pilt]

I almost never advocate for the status quo. I thought you understood that. I advocate for liberty, for free people to make lifestyle decisions freely and without interference. The only economic system consistent with what I advocate is unfettered free market capitalism. Nothing about the status quo comes close. The status quo, to the extent any fool might call it capitalism, is crony capitalism, a mix of “capitalists” in bed with powerful political elites who enrich themselves and shield themselves from the same rules of conduct they enforce on the rest of us. In short it is a mild form of what you advocate.

OK. I'll let the late great Kenneth Arrow go through the drudgery of arguing against free markets in medical care
https://web.stanford.edu/~jay/health_class/Readings/Lecture01/arrow.pdf

 

[Ponca Dan]

OK. I'll let the late great Kenneth Arrow go through the drudgery of arguing against free markets in medical care
https://web.stanford.edu/~jay/health_class/Readings/Lecture01/arrow.pdf

That’s a little much, 34 pages, wouldn’t you say? Why don’t you make your own moral case for why the government should smother liberty in healthcare choices?

 

[my_2cents]

And, yet, you, when confronted with reasonable objections immediately resort to the “right-wing, Fox News inspired, fear mongering” canard without exception..

I haven't heard any reasonable objections so far. Simply saying "we can't pay for it," "it will bankrupt us," "we will become Venezuela," "socialism never works," "bunch of commies," etc. aren't reasonable objections.

And btw, it continues to be hilarious how you are supporting a candidate who advocates for all these domestic policies that you disagree with, attack, and claim will destroy our country.

Oh yeah, that's right, you think she is being disingenuous about her commitment to those domestic positions! I forgot.

 

[07pilt]

That’s a little much, 34 pages, wouldn’t you say? Why don’t you make your own moral case for why the government should smother liberty in healthcare choices?

Ponca Dan. TLDR medical care markets don't satisfy the assumptions required for free market optimality.

My moral argument is Rawlsian, in that if under a veil of ignorance we would all choose a society in which the vicissitudes of health don't determine our economic well being, and the vicissitudes of our economic wellbeing don't determine our health.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Here's a novel idea. Why don't you so-called "progressives" just nut up and take care of yourselves and your families instead of trying to figure out a way to get the "collective" to shoulder your responsibilities for you? Since you're all so much better than us on the right, why can't you just do what we do?

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

I have to object to this my friend. Status as a reserve currency has no material effect on the US's capacity to take on debt.

Are you familiar with a printing machine?

 

[07pilt]

Are you familiar with a printing machine?

Like a printer or more like a press?

 

[MR. TANNER BOYLE]

I have to object to this my friend. Status as a reserve currency has no material effect on the US's capacity to take on debt.

I think I get what you’re saying, but for my own understanding can you please point me to something that supports this statement? Thanks

 

[07pilt]

I think I get what you’re saying, but for my own understanding can you please point me to something that supports this statement? Thanks

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Soft-Curency-Economics-paper.pdf
https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

More specifically it helps to think about what it means to be a reserve currency and why something becomes a reserve currency.

 

[pokenrally]

1. yes
2. why

I think a thing that conservatives don't understand is that the hard left are the ones that people agree with and moderates are the ones people don't like

Amazing. I've seen a lot of stupid posts from a lot of stupid leftists on here, but this one might take the cake. Truly a next-level of stupidity rarely seen.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Ponca Dan. TLDR medical care markets don't satisfy the assumptions required for free market optimality.

My moral argument is Rawlsian, in that if under a veil of ignorance we would all choose a society in which the vicissitudes of health don't determine our economic well being, and the vicissitudes of our economic wellbeing don't determine our health.

Phooey, Pilt. Healthcare is no different from any other product or service. Truly free markets actually function optimally, regardless of what market is involved.

Rawls is an interesting character. I like to think of him as the John Maynard Keynes of American philosophy. He gives intellectual cover to politicians who want to install government programs. Brilliant man, just like Keynes. Just horribly mistaken on many aspects of societal organization. But it is easy to understand why you would be attracted to him.