2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Biden's firewall in South Carolina is crumbling:

Biden, who once led by as much as 31 percentage points in South Carolina, holds a 5-point edge over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the latest Post and Courier-Change Research poll released Sunday. Biden sits at 25 percent to Sanders’ 20 percent.
Click to expand...

And guess who's in third? You're probably wrong:

Billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who has shown South Carolina is a top priority among early-voting states with his constant advertising, sits third not far behind the political veterans at 18 percent.
Click to expand...
:eye-poppi
 
Steyer was on CSPAN today. Asked how he differed from Bloomberg he said they were very different. "Bloomberg isn't a Progressive."

He also had a chance to mention he and his wife started a bank a decade ago and will soon offer credit cards. His goal is a bank and credit cards that don't rip people off.

Of course he's being attacked about it: Bank founded by Tom Steyer has long record of lawsuits against low-income borrowers
Beneficial State Bank charged auto loan borrowers as high as 27.99 percent interest rate
Beneficial State Bank — which Steyer co-founded with his wife, Kat Taylor, and served as board chairman until joining the presidential race in July 2019 — has filed lawsuits and won court judgments against 1,800 borrowers who fell behind on their payments over the past three-and-a-half years, out of more than 22,000 total loans, according to court records and data provided by bank executives.
Click to expand...

The other side of this story:
In an interview, Steyer — who gets no profit from Beneficial and has never been involved in its day-to-day management — said he was proud of the bank’s practices and stressed that “it’s trying to do well enough to stay in business to make more loans to help more people.”
Click to expand...

Maybe being in the auto loan business was not a good idea. Or, they need to use higher qualifications for borrowers.

Let's see what he does with this:
Still, Steyer said he was “disturbed” that the bank had been charging borrowers as high a rate as 27.99 percent, saying he had “never heard that high number before.”
Click to expand...

On another note, Steyer was disappointed the DNC made it too hard for minorities to be in the debates and said he'd asked them to change the debate rules but they wouldn't. Then they changed the rule to let Bloomberg in. Steyer's take is that corporate influence is influencing the DNC.

Sadly, it obviously is.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yay!
Click to expand...

Be careful what you wish for. Bernie would be thrilled with a first or second place finish in SC, but it would be much sweeter if Biden was in third or lower. And Steyer is exactly the type of candidate Bernie wants to keep in the race. If it's Bernie against Steyer against Biden against Bloomberg a month from now, as increasingly looks likely, I'd buy stock in Bernie as the nominee.
 
Sanders sick of Steyer's brown-nosing.

giphy.gif
 
"Started a bank" is supposed to be something a progressive would do? "I've bred a new parasite, it's young so it'll only bleed the victim a little!"

I would expect actual progressives to know what a credit union is and why it's preferable to a bank.

I haven't heard much about Steyer until now. I'll observe him better when he's a fine layer of dust coating Warren's chariot wheels.
 
Sideroxylon said:
You are delusional in this chessboard fantasy taking place between your ears. Maybe your gotcha set ups are not as clever as you think they are?
Click to expand...

There is no gotcha. There is a very simple argument, and since I've already made that argument, there is also no trap. The only reason why you would refuse to answer the question is because you know it leads to a contradiction in your stated principles. If there's a trap at all, it's one you set up on yourself.

And don't worry. I know I'm not very clever.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Steyer was on CSPAN today. Asked how he differed from Bloomberg he said they were very different. "Bloomberg isn't a Progressive."

He also had a chance to mention he and his wife started a bank a decade ago and will soon offer credit cards. His goal is a bank and credit cards that don't rip people off.

Of course he's being attacked about it: Bank founded by Tom Steyer has long record of lawsuits against low-income borrowers
Beneficial State Bank charged auto loan borrowers as high as 27.99 percent interest rate


The other side of this story:

Maybe being in the auto loan business was not a good idea. Or, they need to use higher qualifications for borrowers.

Let's see what he does with this:

On another note, Steyer was disappointed the DNC made it too hard for minorities to be in the debates and said he'd asked them to change the debate rules but they wouldn't. Then they changed the rule to let Bloomberg in. Steyer's take is that corporate influence is influencing the DNC.

Sadly, it obviously is.
Click to expand...

What is the progressive position on high interest loans? Is the theory that the risk is being over-exaggerated and that these rates could be lower and still profitable? Or is the thinking that a person should not have a high interest loans even if they want it?
 
BobTheCoward said:
What is the progressive position on high interest loans? Is the theory that the risk is being over-exaggerated and that these rates could be lower and still profitable? Or is the thinking that a person should not have a high interest loans even if they want it?
Click to expand...

It may shock you to learn that progressives are not interested in libertarian, free-market solutions to the problems of extreme poverty.

Progressives believe that the conditions that lead to people being so poor that the agree to absurdly predatory loan terms should not exist in a wealthy society. They further believe that people enriching themselves on the backs of desperate impoverished people are parasites.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It may shock you to learn that progressives are not interested in libertarian, free-market solutions to the problems of extreme poverty.

Progressives believe that the conditions that lead to people being so poor that the agree to absurdly predatory loan terms should not exist in a wealthy society. They further believe that people enriching themselves on the backs of desperate impoverished people are parasites.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking this question from a libertarian perspective. For one, I don't think my political philosophy does a darn thing to ameliorate poverty.

But until progressives fix the underlying issues of poverty, why do they think these loans are worse than the alternative? Do they think the rates could be lower or that people shouldn't have the loans at all?
 
Brainster said:
Be careful what you wish for. Bernie would be thrilled with a first or second place finish in SC, but it would be much sweeter if Biden was in third or lower. And Steyer is exactly the type of candidate Bernie wants to keep in the race. If it's Bernie against Steyer against Biden against Bloomberg a month from now, as increasingly looks likely, I'd buy stock in Bernie as the nominee.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It really seems like the race is going to come down to Bernie vs the corporate democrats, and the corporate democrats are splitting their votes among several candidates.

Bernie's voting base is rock solid. It's hard to imagine large numbers of his supporters defecting to another candidate. Meanwhile, the corporate field is split among several candidates, and supporters move from one to another as their star rises and falls.

This is where the DNC rat-**** may come into play. I could easily see Bernie coming into the convention with a large plurality, but still get brokered out of the nomination.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I'm not asking this question from a libertarian perspective. For one, I don't think my political philosophy does a darn thing to ameliorate poverty.

But until progressives fix the underlying issues of poverty, why do they think these loans are worse than the alternative? Do they think the rates could be lower or that people shouldn't have the loans at all?
Click to expand...

Progressives believe that the wealthy should be heavily taxed and social safety nets should be sufficient to prevent the poor from having to rely on such desperate measures.

The continued existence of predatory loans is proof of our failed society.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Progressives believe that the wealthy should be heavily taxed and social safety nets should be sufficient to prevent the poor from having to rely on such desperate measures.

The continued existence of predatory loans is proof of our failed society.
Click to expand...

Okay. Until such a time that the society no longer is failing, what should be done about predatory loans?

Further, why are these loans predatory?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Okay. Until such a time that the society no longer is failing, what should be done about predatory loans?

Further, why are these loans predatory?
Click to expand...

This is derailing. I'd say make another thread to discuss this if you want, but I likely wouldn't care enough to participate.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Indeed. It really seems like the race is going to come down to Bernie vs the corporate democrats, and the corporate democrats are splitting their votes among several candidates.

Bernie's voting base is rock solid. It's hard to imagine large numbers of his supporters defecting to another candidate. Meanwhile, the corporate field is split among several candidates, and supporters move from one to another as their star rises and falls.

This is where the DNC rat-**** may come into play. I could easily see Bernie coming into the convention with a large plurality, but still get brokered out of the nomination.
Click to expand...

Corporate democrats are to the left of the median democratic voter.

So do median democrats get a candidate?
 
Last edited:
Bernie had better be careful if he goes to Montana.

Montana state GOP lawmaker says Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed, shot

A Republican state representative from Montana is coming under fire from his own party after he reportedly claimed earlier this weekend that the Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed or shot.

According to the Billings Gazette, state Rep. Rodney Garcia (R-Mont.) first made the remark after expressing concerns about socialists he said were “entering our government” and their presence in his district at an event on Friday.

He reportedly reiterated his remarks when pressed about his previous comments in an interview with a reporter for the local publication on Saturday.

“So actually in the Constitution of the United States (if) they are found guilty of being a socialist member you either go to prison or are shot,” the Montana Republican said.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom