2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[theprestige]

It is not an ad hominem. It's a fair observation. Which you aren't even denying. You'll have to excuse me when I say I don't recall you dissing Trump.

You literally dismissed my argument not because of its merits, but because of who you think I am.

If I show you an example of me dissing Trump, will you accept my argument about Biden?

 

[acbytesla]

You literally dismissed my argument not because of its merits, but because of who you think I am.

If I show you an example of me dissing Trump, will you accept my argument about Biden?

No, because I've seen most of your posts over the last year. But, you're right that I dismissed your opinion because of your history.

 

[theprestige]

No, because I've seen most of your posts over the last year. But, you're right that I dismissed your opinion because of your history.

My argument stands or falls irrespective of my history. Your rebuttal, based on my history instead of my argument, is indeed an ad hom.

 

[acbytesla]

My argument stands or falls irrespective of my history. Your rebuttal, based on my history instead of my argument, is indeed an ad hom.

It wasn't an argument. It was your opinion.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Also, I'm pretty sure that's "poisoning the well."

Usually this fallacy is used against a source or reference the opponent used, but it is being deployed against a self-referencing opinion, so...

Also remember that something fitting the framework of a fallacy doesn't make it "wrong."

 

[theprestige]

It wasn't an argument. It was your opinion.

Not at all. Your argument was that we shouldn't call Biden creepy, because he's not leering at children in parks.

My rebuttal is that there's a lot more ways to be creepy than just that one.

You rejected that, because of my history, rather than actually stopping to consider whether Biden might actually be creepy even though he doesn't leer at children in parks. And you're wrong about my history, too.

 

[acbytesla]

Not at all. Your argument was that we shouldn't call Biden creepy, because he's not leering at children in parks.

My rebuttal is that there's a lot more ways to be creepy than just that one.

You rejected that, because of my history, rather than actually stopping to consider whether Biden might actually be creepy even though he doesn't leer at children in parks. And you're wrong about my history, too.

OK then.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Katherine Harris stumbeled with her missing a vote on a aid package for California in order to campaign. That is the kind of crap that make people cynical about politicians.

Any number of Dem Senators are campaigning. The Sainted Socialist has missed more than Harris. This is news because......?

People are looking for any nits to pick at this stage. Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, Sanders, Warren... they've all missed votes, but not on any significant bill that was going to pass or fail by a single vote. Warren has missed votes on procedural issues, too. But she rescheduled a presser so she could be there and be counted when it was important... to pass the Senate with the to-be-vetoed kick in the 'nads to Trump on his "emergency". The one Harris opted out on (two, in fact) was a procedural issue and the party leadership knew it was dead.

As for it leaving a "bad taste" with the voters? Maybe that's why Rubio failed. He missed a third of the votes when he was running in the Clown Car Circus of '15 - '16. OTOH, maybe no one cares. Senator Barack Obama (whatever happened to that up and comer) missed 90% of the Senate votes in 2008!

 

[mgidm86]

The people have spoken and Joe listened.

His response?

Double down by making jokes about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...n-touching-complaints-jokes-public-appearance

The crowd, which was mostly male, erupted in laughter. Later, Biden made a similar joke after inviting a group of children onstage and putting his arm round a young boy.

“By the way, he gave me permission to touch him,” the former vice-president said, again to laughter.

“Everybody knows I like kids more than people,” Biden said.

So that's how it works for him. The child who cannot consent said it was okay to touch him. I was gonna put a wink smiley here but I'm not too sure about this guy yet.

And he's taking a page right out of Bill Clinton's playbook - joke about your own accusations and people will be endeared to you rather than repulsed. Clinton is a master at this. Biden didn't exactly get a standing ovation for this stunt, so I wonder what the audience really thought.

This next is not at all normal in my opinion (all emphasis mine):

The controversy began when Lucy Flores, a former Nevada state assemblywoman, alleged Biden put his hands on her shoulders, leaned in to smell her hair and kissed the back of her head at a political event in November 2014.

That is something grampa does to granddaughter, but then again maybe not. To do it to a colleague - that's pretty weird.

Other women have shared similar accounts. Several prominent Democratic women have come to Biden’s defense, suggesting such behavior is part of his affectionate demeanor.

Which makes it no less creepy. The fact that it's part of his normal behavior could be telling. It isn't part of anyones affectionate demeanor that I've ever seen.

I reserve judgment but it looks kinda like a duck.

 

[Aridas]

Hmm. A bit from Yang about the universal basic income part of what he's pushing.

CBS NEWS REPORTER: President Trump has been talking a lot lately about socialism and it is no doubt going to be something we'll hear a lot more about as we head into 2020. What do you say to Americans who hear this idea of universal basic income and think: Socialism. It sounds a lot like socialism to them.

YANG: I'm a CEO and businessperson, and I'll tell you, putting money into peoples' hands is good for business, it is good for the economy, it is good for markets. This is not socialism, this is capitalism where income doesn't start at zero. If you think about where Americans are going to spend this money, they're going to spend it at their local businesses, their main street economy. And this is a great way to help supercharge those businesses for the next number of years.

CBS NEWS REPORTER: For people who hear that, and say, ultimately it is still the government handing out money, you would say what?

YANG: You have to look at what has happened to our economic system over the last number of years. Where all the relationships that we've taken for granted with capitalism, where if your company grew rich and successful you'd have to hire lots of people, you'd have to treat them well and pay them well, you'd have to pay them at least as well so they can afford to buy your services, the way Henry Ford said, how do my workers buy my cars?

In today's economy, you can create a very rich and successful business that doesn't employ lots of people, if it does employ people it can employ them as a gig or temporary or contract workers, and it doesn't need to pay them well enough to buy the goods and services because you can sell globally. And so, all of the things we've taken for granted about capitalism are now changing, and we have to evolve with the times.

...Sounds like a wildly more effective and popular way to stimulate the economy than the GOP's massive tax cuts for the extremely rich.

 

[Venom]

Hmm. A bit from Yang about the universal basic income part of what he's pushing.

...Sounds like a wildly more effective and popular way to stimulate the economy than the GOP's massive tax cuts for the extremely rich.

Sounds inefficient imo if it (and it probably would) requires stripping away other elements of the social safety net to just barely pay for it.

Is it better for millions of people to manage cash on their own instead of having the actual service provided to them? And if they mismanage their share then what? I don't like how that sounds.

I'd rather have some form of universal healthcare first before we talk about basic income.

 

[The Atheist]

That is something grampa does to granddaughter, but then again maybe not.

Maybe in Deliverance. My father had 20 grandkids and never did it once, and I'm with you in that I've never noticed anyone else ever doing it - it's an odd thing to do at any stage.

 

[angrysoba]

Sounds inefficient imo if it (and it probably would) requires stripping away other elements of the social safety net to just barely pay for it.

Why do you say that?

Is it better for millions of people to manage cash on their own instead of having the actual service provided to them? And if they mismanage their share then what? I don't like how that sounds.

What are your answers?

SoundsI'd rather have some form of universal healthcare first before we talk about basic income.

Or why not both? I believe that’s what he means by Medicare for all. I suppose there are differences between universal healthcare and universal Medicare but what differences are important?

 

[Aridas]

Sounds inefficient imo if it (and it probably would) requires stripping away other elements of the social safety net to just barely pay for it.

Stripping away other elements of the social security net wasn't on the table. We're talking about a Democratic Candidate in the current environment, remember? My apologies if my comparison of it to the GOP tax cuts' effectiveness and popularity unintentionally misled you, though.

Is it better for millions of people to manage cash on their own instead of having the actual service provided to them? And if they mismanage their share then what? I don't like how that sounds.

I'd rather have some form of universal healthcare first before we talk about basic income.

This is separate from Medicare for All, which is another one of his main policy positions.

 

[Venom]

Why do you say that?

Because it would presumably replace a variety of welfare programs like TANF and SNAP. Without doing that I don't know where the money comes from. raising corporate income taxes? I suppose.

Or why not both? I believe that’s what he means by Medicare for all. I suppose there are differences between universal healthcare and universal Medicare but what differences are important?

I suppose it could happen, but you have a better chance of passing one or the other, and I think if Medicare for All sounds over the top, basic income would be a campaign killer.

I haven't seen any numbers on what Yang imagines each person or household would receive, but if we assume everyone gets $10,000 and 327 million residents in the U.S. we're looking at over $3.2 trillion.

Medicare for all would be another few trillion and this combined amount far exceeds what the government brings in in income tax.

If we're going to spend 3 trillion I want it to go to a particular service like healthcare rather than cash for everyone.

 

[angrysoba]

Because it would presumably replace a variety of welfare programs like TANF and SNAP. Without doing that I don't know where the money comes from. raising corporate income taxes? I suppose.

.

Okay, well I wanted to know if you are going by something you know or just your suppositions. My understanding, from having listened to him on a few podcasts, is that he will raise the money through VAT on sales. Companies still want to produce and sell even if the prices are increased by taxation. Do the maths add up? I don’t know. But the two areas that people assume the money is coming from (welfare programs and direct taxation of companies and the wealthy) are not where he claims the money will come from.

 

[angrysoba]

I suppose it could happen, but you have a better chance of passing one or the other, and I think if Medicare for All sounds over the top, basic income would be a campaign killer.

I haven't seen any numbers on what Yang imagines each person or household would receive, but if we assume everyone gets $10,000 and 327 million residents in the U.S. we're looking at over $3.2 trillion.

Medicare for all would be another few trillion and this combined amount far exceeds what the government brings in in income tax.

If we're going to spend 3 trillion I want it to go to a particular service like healthcare rather than cash for everyone.

1000 dollars a month. So that’s 12,000 a year and yes somewhere in the region of three trillion. I would be interested to see what economists make of his plans. But we should be clear about what his proposals are.

 

[Venom]

1000 dollars a month. So that’s 12,000 a year and yes somewhere in the region of three trillion. I would be interested to see what economists make of his plans. But we should be clear about what his proposals are.

I'm interested as well.

I think media will mostly ignore him unless he manages to crack the top 5.

 

[The_Animus]

Sounds inefficient imo if it (and it probably would) requires stripping away other elements of the social safety net to just barely pay for it.

Is it better for millions of people to manage cash on their own instead of having the actual service provided to them? And if they mismanage their share then what? I don't like how that sounds.

I'd rather have some form of universal healthcare first before we talk about basic income.

Yang has repeatedly said that people can choose either UBI or the current benefits they get. So if people feel the current government assistance they receive is better than his UBI proposal they can keep what they had before.

Yang has also said he is in favor of a Medicare for all type system and that this is in addition to his UBI proposal.

I'd highly suggest you listen to some of the long in depth interviews people have done with him

 

[The Atheist]

I think media will mostly ignore him unless he manages to crack the top 5.

Sitting on 0, 1 & 2% in Democratic nominee polls, I don't think you need to bother.