American Politics / Current Events Thread

[guitarzombie | 924]

Me too!

[Californication | 1,477]

@archangel - how is student debt forgiveness not a bottom up stimulus? 

The banks are the losers because they manage the defaulting loans and will not get access to people who refinance.

@avatar I tried looking at the doc. about taxpayers having to repay, but get hit with a join notice. Also, the site is called "American Banker," I am going to take a wild guess and assume they think student debt forgiveness is a bad idea.

And for pretty much every response I think you all as moderates over estimate the moderate vote. Bernie had support up and down the demographs. None of us know what would have happened if Bernie would have been the candidate so for all of you to be so confident he would lose is kind of weird. 

 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

3 minutes ago, Californication said:

@archangel - how is student debt forgiveness not a bottom up stimulus? 

The banks are the losers because they manage the defaulting loans and will not get access to people who refinance.

Federal student loan debt is $1.5 TRILLION.

Private student loan debt is $113 Billion.

 

For comparison:

Total credit card debt is $1 Trillion

Total mortgage debt is $10 Trillion

Total corporate debt is over $10 Trillion

I don't think the amount that has converted to private loans via refinancing is a meaningful factor in the discussion, when you look at the loan cashflows that banks have on their books.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

13 minutes ago, Californication said:

And for pretty much every response I think you all as moderates over estimate the moderate vote. Bernie had support up and down the demographs. None of us know what would have happened if Bernie would have been the candidate so for all of you to be so confident he would lose is kind of weird. 

 

I think people in the farther left demographic massively over-estimate the vote at that end of the democratic party, and it doesn't sound like you are adequately considering that anyone winning elections in this country, at a truly national level, has to build a big tent to succeed.

What I am confident in, is that the kind of messaging the right wing could bring against Bernie would actually be substantive and damaging, in terms of how he would be portrayed to the majority in the middle -- and at the very least, Bernie would have a fundamental inability to embrace a "return to normal" stance, since that is counter to his intentions.

Instead, we got a year of lazy throw-away insults about "sleepy Joe", and attacks against his son -- where they had to resort to character assassination attempts, because they KNEW that a "moderate democrat" had MASSIVE appeal as a "return to normal" during a time of fundamental political insanity.

 

 

[Californication | 1,477]

6 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

I think people in the farther left demographic massively over-estimate the vote at that end of the democratic party, and it doesn't sound like you are adequately considering that anyone winning elections in this country, at a truly national level, has to build a big tent to succeed.

What I am confident in, is that the kind of messaging the right wing could bring against Bernie would actually be substantive and damaging, in terms of how he would be portrayed to the majority in the middle -- and at the very least, Bernie would have a fundamental inability to embrace a "return to normal" stance, since that is counter to his intentions.

Instead, we got a year of lazy throw-away insults about "sleepy Joe", and attacks against his son -- where they had to resort to character assassination attempts, because they KNEW that a "moderate democrat" had MASSIVE appeal as a "return to normal" during a time of fundamental political insanity.

 

 

Older democrats who are generally moderate would have voted D no matter what. That is why they don't pander to the older vote it is a given. 

A ham sandwhich would have beat Trump. The state races were tight because Biden is a ham sandwhich.

Trump would have beaten him ifnhe wasn't so incompetent about corona virus 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Californication

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

8 minutes ago, Californication said:

Older democrats who are generally moderate would have voted D no matter what. That is why they don't pander to the older vote it is a given. 

A ham sandwhich would have beat Trump. The state races were tight because Biden is a ham sandwhich.

Trump would have beaten him ifnhe wasn't so incompetent about corona virus 

Trump mustered the 2nd most number of votes in history in his loss, so we're fortunate that so many people wanted a ham sandwich.

 

"State races were tight" because a significant amount of voters are susceptible to messaging that made it sound like socialists were going to completely take over the system.

Bernie would be uniquely susceptible to playing into that messaging.

Edited March 2, 2021 by arch_8ngel

[Californication | 1,477]

4 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Trump mustered the 2nd most number of votes in history in his loss, so we're fortunate that so many people wanted a ham sandwich.

They didn't want the ham sandwhich, they didn't want Trump.

Biden didn't even campaign most of the time. He didn't have to sell himself because people were voting against Trump not for Biden.

That is why the Dems lost down ballot. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Californication

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

3 minutes ago, Californication said:

They didn't want the ham sandwhich, they didn't want Trump.

Biden didn't even campaign most of the time. He didn't have to sell himself because people were voting against Trump not for Biden.

That is why the Dems lost down ballot. 

That last bit just goes to show how important "the middle" actually was in defeating Trump... i.e. people that don't feel compelled to vote straight-ticket.

[Californication | 1,477]

6 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Trump mustered the 2nd most number of votes in history in his loss, so we're fortunate that so many people wanted a ham sandwich.

 

"State races were tight" because a significant amount of voters are susceptible to messaging that made it sound like socialists were going to completely take over the system.

Bernie would be uniquely susceptible to playing into that messaging.

The socialist angle has been disproven many times. That was the first democrat wide party talking point after the election. They have reviewed the state by state elections and in the tight ones the republicians usually didn't use socialism as an attack against the candidate and nearly every democrat candidate that pushed socialist positions like free healthcare won.

[Californication | 1,477]

25 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

That last bit just goes to show how important "the middle" actually was in defeating Trump... i.e. people that don't feel compelled to vote straight-ticket.

The main democrat campaign was so bad that people just voted against Trump. Biden didn't build any support for down ballot races because he didn't campaign, and is a ham sandwhich, and the democrats lost a huge number of seats in the house. Really it is was a pretty embaressing loss for Nancy Pelosi and the house. This should have been a wave election for the Dems.

Obama didn't lose half the house when he was elected.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Californication

[avatar! | 1,811]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/02/us/desantis-florida-covid-vaccine-sites/index.html

DeSantis declined CNN's request for an on-camera interview for this story. Meredith Beatrice, the governor's director of strategic initiatives, sent an email to CNN saying, in part, "The insinuation that politics play into vaccine distribution in Florida is baseless and ridiculous."

Yeah, seriously CNN! It wasn't politics, it was... um, money. Yeah, don't ask him about his business...

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

1 hour ago, Californication said:

The socialist angle has been disproven many times. That was the first democrat wide party talking point after the election. They have reviewed the state by state elections and in the tight ones the republicians usually didn't use socialism as an attack against the candidate and nearly every democrat candidate that pushed socialist positions like free healthcare won.

I think you are misunderstanding how different opinions in some states are if you think that democrat candidates lost because they didn't push socialist positions as their primary message.

The vast majority of Americans would be better off with it.  But in a lot of states, whether that is the active messaging, or not, there is a lot of built-up fear of anything that even brushes up against the "socialist" label.

 

I really think you are overestimating what Bernie's chances would have been, and how easy it would have been to run attack ads against him in a national campaign situation -- where even without getting into the socialism, getting into the fact that he had a heart attack during the primaries being seen as a major disqualifier on health grounds.

And for as old as Biden and Trump are -- Bernie is EVEN OLDER.

 

A way better strategy would have been to run a younger candidate that wasn't a dinosaur.

But as it is, I'll settle for a single term out of Biden where he might step aside in 4 years and lets a younger person step up to the plate.

 

All of these guys are way too fucking old.

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by arch_8ngel

[Californication | 1,477]

30 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

I think you are misunderstanding how different some states are if you think that democrats lost in traditionally red states because they didn't push socialist positions as their primary message.

The vast majority of Americans would be better off with it.  But in a lot of states, whether that is the active messaging, or not, there is a lot of built-up fear of anything that even brushes up against the "socialist" label.

 

But if Bernie had been the national ticket, that kind of messaging would be a slam dunk against him in a lot of places.

 

Moderate/conservative Democrats lost the presidency in 2016, they lost their lead in the house in 2020 (which should have been a blue wave year), and they are going to lose again in 2022 if they continue on the current path. 

Barack Obama won using socialist rhetoric and pivoted to the center.

Donald Trump won using socialist rhetoric (and racism) and pivoted to the center.

I didn't say anything about dems needing to pushing socialist messages in red states. I said they didn't lose because of socialist attacks.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Californication

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

Just now, Californication said:

Moderate/conservative Democrats lost the presidency in 2016, they lost their lead in the house in 2020 (which should have been a blue wave year), and they are going to lose again in 2022 if they continue on the current path. 

Barack Obama won using socialist rhetoric and pivoted to the center.

 

Believe what you want, I guess, but the reality I see on the ground is that "socialism" is still an effective punching bag in a pretty significant segment of America.

But I do think you're being disingenuous if you want to claim that "using socialist rhetoric" is what won the election for Obama.

 

 

Universal healthcare needs a better branding campaign that isn't conducted in the midst of an election cycle.

There was way too much "noise" from primary competitors trying to explain how it would work, financially, and if any of them really want it to happen, they need to come together with a good plan that they all stand behind -- and then compete with each other on other merits.  Because absolutely none of the candidates in the primary are individually qualified or knowledgeable enough to make it work on paper, and it takes teams of analysts and specialists to really figure it out correctly.  If Democrats (on any end of the party spectrum) want it to happen, they need to get that team to do the job correctly ONCE, so that the messaging about healthcare is consistent, clear, and accurate.

Not having a socialist-enough president isn't why that isn't going to happen.

[Californication | 1,477]

14 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Believe what you want, I guess, but the reality I see on the ground is that "socialism" is still an effective punching bag in a pretty significant segment of America.

But I do think you're being disingenuous if you want to claim that "using socialist rhetoric" is what won the election for Obama.

 

 

Universal healthcare needs a better branding campaign that isn't conducted in the midst of an election cycle.

There was way too much "noise" from primary competitors trying to explain how it would work, financially, and if any of them really want it to happen, they need to come together with a good plan that they all stand behind -- and then compete with each other on other merits.  Because absolutely none of the candidates in the primary are individually qualified or knowledgeable enough to make it work on paper, and it takes teams of analysts and specialists to really figure it out correctly.  If Democrats (on any end of the party spectrum) want it to happen, they need to get that team to do the job correctly ONCE, so that the messaging about healthcare is consistent, clear, and accurate.

Not having a socialist-enough president isn't why that isn't going to happen.

A. Obama is a charismatic speaker and he campaigned on hope/change. If that is not socialist/progressive message, idk what is. 

 B. Yes, there was noise on the healthcare debate. The main reason is because most of the dems didn't actually want healthcare change, but wantes Bernies shine.

By saying more "socialist" president you are framing it wrong from the outset. People want stimulus checks, minimum wage, health care, debt forgiveness. There are studies, polls, and anectdotal data that show this. If those programs fall under socialism then they fall under socialism, but that is what the people want maybe without exclusively calling it socialism.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Californication

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

6 minutes ago, Californication said:

By saying more "socialist" president you are framing it wrong from the outset. People want stimulus checks, minimum wage, health care, debt forgiveness. There are studies, polls, and anectdotal data that show this. If those programs fall under socialism then they fall under socialism, but that is what the people want maybe without exclusively calling it socialism.

You're missing my point that while the president has a lot of power to say "no", he doesn't have a particularly potent magic wand to wave to say "yes".

Irrespective of who is president, you're dealing with senate filibuster, along with the optics of party-line votes that serve to continue the appearance of a winner-takes-all culture war.

[Californication | 1,477]

37 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

You're missing my point that while the president has a lot of power to say "no", he doesn't have a particularly potent magic wand to wave to say "yes".

Irrespective of who is president, you're dealing with senate filibuster, along with the optics of party-line votes that serve to continue the appearance of a winner-takes-all culture war.

The president has the bully pulpit that is capable of pushing issues. 

I agree healthcare is the hardest line item I listed. 

Minimum wage - easy - even some republicans are okay for it

Debt forgiveness - easy - swing of a pen

2K stimulus checks - easy. What kind of idiot shaves off $600 per person after selling it, and it only costs $45 B - $45B on a 1.9T bill. It's 2.3% of the bill - lol.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Californication

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

3 minutes ago, Californication said:

 

2K stimulus checks - easy. What kind of idiot shaves off $600 per person after selling it, and it only costs $45 B - $45 B on a 1.5 T bill. It's 2.3% of the bill - lol.

Gotta think about reelection. 2k is what trump wanted to stuff in there. Biden agreeing with Trump on a super key fiscal policy is a great step for keeping those moderate swing voters that defected from Trump based on his attitude, regardless on how much they strongly agree with Trump fiscally.

"Remember how Biden was like a republican here," the pundits will be saying should Trump try to brand him as a socialist again.

 

[Californication | 1,477]

26 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

Gotta think about reelection. 2k is what trump wanted to stuff in there. Biden agreeing with Trump on a super key fiscal policy is a great step for keeping those moderate swing voters that defected from Trump based on his attitude, regardless on how much they strongly agree with Trump fiscally.

"Remember how Biden was like a republican here," the pundits will be saying should Trump try to brand him as a socialist again.

 

Think about re-election? Trump sent people a check for $1200 and a check for $600 totaling $1800. This dummy is starting off with $1400 when he told people $2K.  

So you think voters will appreciate Biden more than Trump more (not considering any other actions) for sending them $1,400 when Donald Trump sent them $1,800?

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

1 hour ago, Californication said:

Think about re-election? Trump sent people a check for $1200 and a check for $600 totaling $1800. This dummy is starting off with $1400 when he told people $2K.  

So you think voters will appreciate Biden more than Trump more (not considering any other actions) for sending them $1,400 when Donald Trump sent them $1,800?

Trump literally said he wanted 2k checks to go out. He had to settle for $600 because that's all the republican congress sent to his desk. 600+1400=2000. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=donald+trump+saying+make+it+2000&safe=active&client=ms-android-comcast-us-revc&prmd=vin&sxsrf=ALeKk01p7FQ7J3AHi9d3mMxSwvrtcpO5lQ:1614731423426&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju85mn75LvAhUEUzUKHRYPB5cQ_AUoAXoECBAQAQ&biw=412&bih=741#ip=1

 

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

1 hour ago, Californication said:

Think about re-election? Trump sent people a check for $1200 and a check for $600 totaling $1800. This dummy is starting off with $1400 when he told people $2K.  

So you think voters will appreciate Biden more than Trump more (not considering any other actions) for sending them $1,400 when Donald Trump sent them $1,800?

On a side note, I have 3 kids. If that 250 per kid monthly stipend goes through, that will be life changing money for my family. Trump wouldnt have even tried that. And I know you feel differently, but I don't see Bernie having a realistic path to winning 270 votes. 

 

[Californication | 1,477]

1 hour ago, Kguillemette said:

On a side note, I have 3 kids. If that 250 per kid monthly stipend goes through, that will be life changing money for my family. Trump wouldnt have even tried that. And I know you feel differently, but I don't see Bernie having a realistic path to winning 270 votes. 

 

So let me get this straight, you're a fiscal conservative and disagree with things like student loan forgiveness, but are excited to get a stimulus for your kids?

Edited March 3, 2021 by Californication

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

I am 100% against a per-kid monthly stipend, personally. 

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

33 minutes ago, Californication said:

So let me get this straight, you're a fiscal conservative and disagree with things like student loan forgiveness, but are excited to get a stimulus for your kids?

I know it's hypocritical to say the least, but if the government wants to make it rain on me, I'm not going to say no. 

[Californication | 1,477]

11 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

I know it's hypocritical to say the least, but if the government wants to make it rain on me, I'm not going to say no. 

I've know people that had a similar outlook. I just don't understand the break between understanding how the policy will help you in a positive way to how similar policies are good for other people. 

I didn't get any money for kids, don't get food stamps, don't get ssdi, but all the same I am happy because they grow the economy not to mention that they help Americans. And from my perspective we pay into the system so it should benefit us instead of only the top 1% and corporations.