• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
Maybe. But there are a lot of things in US law that are okay if everybody in a class gets them without discrimination, but that become unconstitutional or illegal if the government picks favorites within the class.

Every religion getting the same benefit, as long as they practice in a certain way, is very different from some religions getting special benefits for believing in certain government-approved doctrines.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Giving religion - without regard to doctrine or creed - similar benefits as charities (due to perceived similar community benefits) has you wringing your hands about having a state religion against the constitution.

But I think that what Beto Roberto is proposing goes a lot further than that, and actually gets us pretty close to exactly the establishment of religion that the constitution prohibits.
Click to expand...

But religious institutions don't operate like charities. Charities in the US are required to be registered and audited. Churches are not. And here's where Beto's proposal passes muster. Charities cannot discriminate based on sexual preferences.

If churches wish to operate like other charities, the government would have no merit in suggesting they should have specific limitations on them and neither would I.

The problem with giving all religions a tax exemption is that we have given a business that sells superstitious nonsense a tax benefit even if that business is only really benefiting the people who run it or is just generating hate.

The tax exemption is itself a law that the establishment clause in plain language restricts. "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion.
 
I'm going to preface this with a simple - I'm not a huge fan of Beto and I disagree with him here, but there is a simple important fact in play here. A bunch of "religious organizations" have been engaged in a LOT of foul play for a long, long time and have been just allowed to get away with it for not really any actually "good" reason.

theprestige said:
Maybe. But there are a lot of things in US law that are okay if everybody in a class gets them without discrimination, but that become unconstitutional or illegal if the government picks favorites within the class.

Every religion getting the same benefit, as long as they practice in a certain way, is very different from some religions getting special benefits for believing in certain government-approved doctrines.
Click to expand...

Sure. On the other hand, "religion" is easily outright abused to get tax exemptions. "Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption" was quite the demonstration of the tip of that. I actually am quite in favor of tightening the laws related to religion to actually address at least some of the loopholes that conmen are wildly and brazenly abusing there, though I'm also aware that that may not be much of a viable option - and that completely unethical folks like the ones that are currently in power would certainly wildly abuse any such power.

theprestige said:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Giving religion - without regard to doctrine or creed - similar benefits as charities (due to perceived similar community benefits) has you wringing your hands about having a state religion against the constitution.
Click to expand...

Similar benefits and effectively no oversight whatsoever? What are your thoughts on religions changing so-called religious beliefs suddenly and blatantly politically to try to interfere in politics, incidentally? For example, to go back a few years... Evangelical churches were fiercely resisting the school desegregation around the time of Roe v Wade. Before, during, and for several years after Roe v Wade, there was general support for women's choice, for much the same reasons as the pro-choice people of today. Carter threatened the tax exemption of the Evangelicals over their actions related to school desegregation and suddenly, the Evangelical leaders were preaching how vile abortion was with the sub-text that everyone should vote against Carter. That's had rather distinct and harmful consequences over the years since, incidentally.

theprestige said:
But I think that what Beto Roberto is proposing goes a lot further than that, and actually gets us pretty close to exactly the establishment of religion that the constitution prohibits.
Click to expand...

While I do disagree with Beto's position, I don't think that at all, on either count.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
I'm going to preface this with a simple - I'm not a huge fan of Beto and I disagree with him here, but there is a simple important fact in play here. A bunch of "religious organizations" have been engaged in a LOT of foul play for a long, long time and have been just allowed to get away with it for not really any actually "good" reason.
Click to expand...
Yes, but diddling around with their tax status is reminiscent of Nero and his fiddle. Beto missed a good chance to take a clear stance for separation of church and state. He blew it.

That said, if he took a principled stance, he'd be out of the running the next day. I'm not blind to that but I am still disappointed.
 
SezMe said:
Yes, but diddling around with their tax status is reminiscent of Nero and his fiddle. Beto missed a good chance to take a clear stance for separation of church and state. He blew it.

That said, if he took a principled stance, he'd be out of the running the next day. I'm not blind to that but I am still disappointed.
Click to expand...

I agree, he quite did blow it. I'm not so convinced that him actually taking a principled stand would push him out of the running, though... but then, I consider him to be pretty much out of the running anyways, at this point.
 
Elizabeth Warren has a history of collecting cash from billionaires

Bit of a pro-Sanders hatchet job on warren for having received 30(!) donations from billionaires in her whole career.

There's a lot of legitimate consternation about who funds campaigns, certainly. Like unlimited, untraceable sums flying around by the millions.

Making hay over 30 donations of no more than $2,800 over her entire career seems a bit hysterical. Plus as the story gets going, they pivot to Sanders numerous times as a direct contrast "moral exemplar."

Anecdotally, my social media feeds show a big rise in both subtle and direct digs at Warren from those who I see promoting Bernie the most over roughly the last week.

I was 100% Bernie in 2016, I've been behind him this time, though I've not settled between he and Warren this time around, yet. I did not like the attitude shift in his supporters as the primaries wore on and seeing signs of attack mode/negative campaigning this early might tip the scales away from him for me.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Elizabeth Warren has a history of collecting cash from billionaires

Bit of a pro-Sanders hatchet job on warren for having received 30(!) donations from billionaires in her whole career.

There's a lot of legitimate consternation about who funds campaigns, certainly. Like unlimited, untraceable sums flying around by the millions.

Making hay over 30 donations of no more than $2,800 over her entire career seems a bit hysterical. Plus as the story gets going, they pivot to Sanders numerous times as a direct contrast "moral exemplar."

Anecdotally, my social media feeds show a big rise in both subtle and direct digs at Warren from those who I see promoting Bernie the most over roughly the last week.

I was 100% Bernie in 2016, I've been behind him this time, though I've not settled between he and Warren this time around, yet. I did not like the attitude shift in his supporters as the primaries wore on and seeing signs of attack mode/negative campaigning this early might tip the scales away from him for me.
Click to expand...

The Bernie fanatics are being pathologically silly right now in their criticism of fellow progressive candidates, especially Warren. They've become the blowhards they pretend to be against. Someone replied to my comment on a video by The Young Turks that Warren is an ex-Republican who's "like the Hillary of 2020".

Hopefully they are just the loud minority among the progressive electorate.
 
To be fair, Warren is already in the 1%, so she probably doesn't need a lot of donations from other one-percenters. Sure, Warren has obviously made friends with a few billionaires over the course of her career, but what career politician hasn't?
 
theprestige said:
To be fair, Warren is already in the 1%, so she probably doesn't need a lot of donations from other one-percenters.
Click to expand...

Being in the 1% doesn't mean you can self-finance campaigns.

If she were a billionaire herself, maybe. But she's not.
 
Venom said:
The Bernie fanatics are being pathologically silly right now in their criticism of fellow progressive candidates, especially Warren. They've become the blowhards they pretend to be against. Someone replied to my comment on a video by The Young Turks that Warren is an ex-Republican who's "like the Hillary of 2020".

Hopefully they are just the loud minority among the progressive electorate.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of those twitter people were probably Ron Paul fanatics before 2016. LOL
 
kellyb said:
I think a lot of those twitter people were probably Ron Paul fanatics before 2016. LOL
Click to expand...

Hehe. It does look like that.

Interestingly, Ron Paul has been bashing Bernie Sanders until recently.

Some of the extremists were hoping for some kind of anti-establishment alliance between the two movements when Paul complimented Sanders in 2016 and said he sympathized with him.

Probably not going to happen. :D
 
I get that the internet just has to pick one outside the mainstream candidate to get behind but yeah you don't get much more night and day then Socialist leaning Democrat and the Libertarian leaning Republican.
 
kellyb said:
Being in the 1% doesn't mean you can self-finance campaigns.



If she were a billionaire herself, maybe. But she's not.
Click to expand...
Her tax returns show her effective tax rate at around 30% so there's no hypocrite hay to make here. She's not dodging her fair share.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I thought they all want Michelle Obama to run ...
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it:

Former first lady Michelle Obama would enter the 2020 Democratic New Hampshire primary race as the frontrunner, a new Franklin Pierce University-Boston Herald poll has found — though so far she’s insisted she won’t.

The poll, conducted Oct. 9-13, has Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden tied in the lead of the current Democratic field in the Granite State primary, with Bernie Sanders slightly behind.

“Today, the Democratic race is a statistical dead heat between Warren (25%), Biden (24%) and Sanders (22%),” pollster R. Kelly Myers wrote in his summary of the poll results.

“If Michelle Obama were to enter the race, it would change things dramatically,” Myers wrote. “Twenty-six percent of Democrats would vote for her, making her the new frontrunner. Under this scenario, Obama (26%) would lead Warren (20%), (Biden (20%) and Sanders (15%). She would take away 4 points from Warren, 4 points from Biden and 7 points from Sanders.”
Click to expand...
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Her tax returns show her effective tax rate at around 30% so there's no hypocrite hay to make here. She's not dodging her fair share.
Click to expand...

It's not a question of hypocrisy or fair share. There may also be a question of hypocrisy, but that's not a question I've raised. And I tend to think that the rich already pay more than their fair share in taxes, but that's not really important here.
 
Brainster said:
Now that you mention it:
Click to expand...

Former first lady Michelle Obama would enter the 2020 Democratic New Hampshire primary race as the frontrunner, a new Franklin Pierce University-Boston Herald poll has found — though so far she’s insisted she won’t.

The poll, conducted Oct. 9-13, has Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden tied in the lead of the current Democratic field in the Granite State primary, with Bernie Sanders slightly behind.
“Today, the Democratic race is a statistical dead heat between Warren (25%), Biden (24%) and Sanders (22%),” pollster R. Kelly Myers wrote in his summary of the poll results.

“If Michelle Obama were to enter the race, it would change things dramatically,” Myers wrote. “Twenty-six percent of Democrats would vote for her, making her the new frontrunner. Under this scenario, Obama (26%) would lead Warren (20%), (Biden (20%) and Sanders (15%). She would take away 4 points from Warren, 4 points from Biden and 7 points from Sanders.”
Click to expand...

The problem with hypotheticals is just that. They are hypothetical. Michelle is one classy woman. But I really don't know if we can say she would make a good Presidential candidate. Even if a poll says that a hypothetical non-candidate polls well.
 
JoeMorgue said:
No. No more Obamas. No more Bushes. No more Clintons.

No... more.. dynasties.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, one of the great strengths of the American system is that it's virtually impossible to have a dynasty in the conventional sense. None of the high offices are hereditary. There's no mechanism to install favorites. Your family connections only matter if you can sell them to the voting public. And at that point, it's the same "electability by association" advantage that anyone else associated with a successful politician would have.

George H. W. Bush succeeding Reagan was probably the most dynastic outcome we've had in recent presidential elections. Biden is making a similarly dynastic play right now.

Meanwhile, Jeb Bush got flatly rejected by voters. And Hillary's campaign got vehemently split response from voters. So bring 'em on. Let Michelle Obama run if she wants to. Let Jeb try again if he dares. Let Chelsea Clinton throw her hat in the ring, if that's her pleasure. Hell, let Ivanka run. It's not like Donald Trump can reach out from beyond the presidency to install her, the way Vladimir Putin installed Medvedev, and later reinstalled himself. To me, that kind of thing is actually dynastic, in a way that a relative of a US president running for office, partly on the strength of the name and the association, isn't.
 
acbytesla said:
The problem with hypotheticals is just that. They are hypothetical. Michelle is one classy woman. But I really don't know if we can say she would make a good Presidential candidate. Even if a poll says that a hypothetical non-candidate polls well.
Click to expand...

It confirms what I've suspected all along; that Democrats in general are unhappy with the choices set before them. It's kind of a slap in the face to the other candidates, who have had long experience in government, who've laid out policy positions on every issue under the sun, that they could be beaten by a woman who has little other than being classy to recommend her. Oh, yes, you could say that it was understood that Barack would help her along--but how sexist is that? Note as well that New Hampshire is not a state with a significant African-American population (1.1%), so it's not a case of Michelle getting only black Democrats to support her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom