Cont: 2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part IV

[The Atheist]

BINGO! EXACTLY! SPOT-ON!

SG, you're not missing the forest for the trees, you're missing the whole planet. The "mess" is decades of American corporate kleptocracy. We live in a plutocracy now and Trump, despite being a plutocrat himself, was able to convince large numbers of people that he was an advocate the the "little guy". That "mess is real and needs to be cleaned up.

The Democrats, while claiming to be supporters of the middle class, have done almost as much as the GOP in contributing to this mess. Until their rhetoric and policies reflect a recognition of the fact of our plutocracy, they will remain in trouble.

That is why I am a Warren man. She explicitly recognizes the problem and knows what to do about it. The others, not so much.

Bravo!

I'd call it perfect if that word weren't tainted forever with the stench of having come out of the mouth of that orange thing you have as President.

That's the one that isn't self-isolating despite having been standing next to at least one confirmed case.

Did he sound like he had a bit of a sore throat today, or was that just the fear coming through?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

In 2016 [...] a hated technocrat that hardly deigned to acknowledge the problem

In fairness to Clinton, she did acknowledge the problems. Her take on the coal belt, for instance, was to give the hard truth head-on: coal is dying, and coal towns need to find something else to do before they die with it.

She was just crap at selling it, because they didn't want to hear that. They wanted a politician to blow sunshine so far up their ass it'd clear out all that black lung.

 

[Minoosh]

I see nobody is even going to pretend like I made those comments in the context of pushing back against the idea the Return to Normal might not be as appealing to everyone as its proponents imagine.

Normal looks OK to me, but then, I'm 60. I would prefer to see a sustainable planet, though, and IMO that will require a global "redistribution" of wealth in the form of more opportunities for the very poor. That's why I bring up the planet thing. I'm not totally a zero-sum person, but there's an element of that ... meaning a modest dip in living standards in the U.S. is acceptable to me, if it means people elsewhere are getting opportunities.

 

[Stacyhs]

In fairness to Clinton, she did acknowledge the problems. Her take on the coal belt, for instance, was to give the hard truth head-on: coal is dying, and coal towns need to find something else to do before they die with it.

She was just crap at selling it, because they didn't want to hear that. They wanted a politician to blow sunshine so far up their ass it'd clear out all that black lung.

THAT!

 

[Aridas]

Mmm. A bit of good Biden news.

Biden is endorsing Warren's Bankruptcy Plan.

Given that it is, as noted -

That's a significant shift, as the proposal would largely undo the 2005 bankruptcy bill the two clashed over in Congress.

That's a pretty big move.

 

[varwoche]

It's bleakly amusing when I see disagreements between the extra-pure and extra-super-pure.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) turned down repeated requests from Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign to appear at events promoting the Vermont senator’s candidacy in recent weeks, according to three people familiar with the discussions
...
Ocasio-Cortez ― already annoyed with the campaign’s Jan. 23 decision to publicize the endorsement of controversial podcast host Joe Rogan ― grew less interested in helping Sanders’ campaign

 

[theprestige]

I think the term is "extra virgin".

Seriously, though, I think AOC probably has the right strategy here. Bernie's had a whole career in politics, to sell his brand of revolutionary progressivism. It's not like he was going to be able to do any of it, even if he had somehow gotten elected. He's on his way out, and AOC doesn't need to tie her fortunes to his swan song presidential campaign. She's still got her whole career in politics ahead of her. Backing Bernie right now doesn't do her brand of revolutionary progressivism any favors. Better to bide her time and build up her base.

 

[dudalb]

I wonder if anybody is going to pay much attention to tommorow's debate with the virus domnating all the news cycles.

 

[theprestige]

I wonder if anybody is going to pay much attention to tommorow's debate with the virus domnating all the news cycles.

I assume they're going to try to make the debate relevant by talking about C19 the entire time.

Biden: "You know, for the past 50 years I've been thinking we need a better epidemic management infrastructure at the federal level. Now is the time to actually do something about it."

Sanders: "If you elect me, I will nationalize the means of hand sanitizer production!"

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: AOC not campaigning more for Sanders...

I think the term is "extra virgin".

Seriously, though, I think AOC probably has the right strategy here. Bernie's had a whole career in politics, to sell his brand of revolutionary progressivism. It's not like he was going to be able to do any of it, even if he had somehow gotten elected. He's on his way out, and AOC doesn't need to tie her fortunes to his swan song presidential campaign. She's still got her whole career in politics ahead of her. Backing Bernie right now doesn't do her brand of revolutionary progressivism any favors. Better to bide her time and build up her base.

But she's already endorsed Sanders. Its not like that bell can be un-rung, so spending additional time campaigning for him wouldn't necessarily cause any more damage to her career long-term.

Maybe she is smart and pragmatic enough to realize that the best course of action is for the Democrats to present a united front (and then push for her progressive policies from the inside), and having Sanders continue further into the primaries is ultimately harmful.

 

[Aridas]

Re: AOC not campaigning more for Sanders...

But she's already endorsed Sanders. Its not like that bell can be un-rung, so spending additional time campaigning for him wouldn't necessarily cause any more damage to her career long-term.

Maybe she is smart and pragmatic enough to realize that the best course of action is for the Democrats to present a united front (and then push for her progressive policies from the inside), and having Sanders continue further into the primaries is ultimately harmful.

Alternately, of course... she is a busy woman, regardless, and, to be clear, campaigning for Bernie isn't even remotely her job. She's already done the most effective things that she can do for him and has lots of other things on her plate, including her notable efforts to get more progressives elected in lower profile races.

That Bernie's chances look rather slim right now does likely play into considerations of where to spend her limited time, but I would definitely not take it as a sign of her being afraid of damaging her long-term career by campaigning more for him.

 

[SezMe]

If this is your rationale for why Trump was elected, we live on different planets. Yes, much of that is true. No, it is not why Trump got elected. If anything it's the opposite, corporate interference is exactly how we got incompetrump.

Much of my post is true but is the "opposite" of why Trump got elected? Yep, You live where I've never been

Warren is out of the race in case you missed that memo.

Golly, gee whiz, thanks for the update.
But I can still be a supporter.

Time to suck it up and stop promoting the belief Biden and Trump are the same.

Time to suck it up and stop reading into posts content that just isn't there. I challenge you to find where I gave even the slightest hint that I think Biden and Trump are the same. Go ahead; do it. Make a fool out of me ... or yourself.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In fairness to Clinton, she did acknowledge the problems. Her take on the coal belt, for instance, was to give the hard truth head-on: coal is dying, and coal towns need to find something else to do before they die with it.

She was just crap at selling it, because they didn't want to hear that. They wanted a politician to blow sunshine so far up their ass it'd clear out all that black lung.

Total crap marketing, letting the clip of her saying coal jobs would be gone without pointing out the next sentence was: "Which is why we need a program for retraining..."

 

[Stacyhs]

Total crap marketing, letting the clip of her saying coal jobs would be gone without pointing out the next sentence was: "Which is why we need a program for retraining..."

So true. I believed then, and I continue to believe, that HRC would have made a far superior president to Trump. But then again, so would a lice picking, butt scratching baboon.

 

[Bob001]

Total crap marketing, letting the clip of her saying coal jobs would be gone without pointing out the next sentence was: "Which is why we need a program for retraining..."

But what she said was "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business," as if it was her master plan. Once she said that nobody heard anything else. If she had said something like "You know your industry is shrinking, here and around the world, through no fault of your own, and I will bring new industries and new jobs to the hard-working people of West Virginia."

Sure, she said more. She should have said it first. Unforced error. Clueless insensitivity. At least she didn't call the miners "deplorable."
https://www.npr.org/2016/05/03/476485650/fact-check-hillary-clinton-and-coal-jobs

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Much of my post is true but is the "opposite" of why Trump got elected? Yep, You live where I've never been

Are You Inadvertently Supporting Trump’s Re-election?

Earlier this month, the internet went into boycott mode after it was revealed that American businessman Stephen Ross was throwing a $250,000-per-ticket fundraiser to raise money for U.S. President Trump’s re-election campaign, reportedly collecting around $12 million. Ross, who has a current net worth of around $7.7 billion, is an investor in dozens of well-known companies.

But Ross is far from the only tycoon whose politics are prompting protests—a surprising number of businesses are financially tied to the 45th president in some way. And a lot of their businesses operate in Canada, too. Here are 15 U.S. brands that operate in Canada and donate to Trump’s campaign.

Top 10 Donors to Trump's 2016 Campaign

1. Robert Mercer, Renaissance Technologies - $13.5 million ...

2. Sheldon Adelson and Miriam Adelson, Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS) - $10 million...

3. Linda McMahon, World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE) - $6 million ...

4. Bernard Marcus, Retired - $7 million ...

5. Geoffrey Palmer, G.H. Palmer Associates - $2 million ...

6. Ronald M Cameron, Mountaire Corp. - $2 million ...

7. Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies - $1.25 million ...Thiel is also a director at Facebook (FB). ....

8. Walter Buckley Jr, Actua Corporation (ACTA) - $1 million ...

9. Cherna Moskowitz, Hawaiian Gardens Casino - $1 million ...

10. Peter Zieve, Electroimpact - $1 million ...

Time to suck it up and stop reading into posts content that just isn't there. I challenge you to find where I gave even the slightest hint that I think Biden and Trump are the same. Go ahead; do it. Make a fool out of me ... or yourself.

That is how I interpret this:

The "mess" is decades of American corporate kleptocracy. We live in a plutocracy now and Trump, despite being a plutocrat himself, was able to convince large numbers of people that he was an advocate the the "little guy". That "mess is real and needs to be cleaned up.

The Democrats, while claiming to be supporters of the middle class, have done almost as much as the GOP in contributing to this mess. Until their rhetoric and policies reflect a recognition of the fact of our plutocracy, they will remain in trouble.

Maybe you meant something else. But it sounds to me like you see no difference between the Democratic or Republican Parties that gave us Trump.

And if one believes the Democratic Party led to Trump and Biden is a return to the same policies ...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But what she said was "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business," as if it was her master plan. Once she said that nobody heard anything else. ...

No one heard anything else because the GOP made a soundbite out of that half of what she said and she did nothing to counter the sound bite.

 

[Bob001]

So true. I believed then, and I continue to believe, that HRC would have made a far superior president to Trump. But then again, so would a lice picking, butt scratching baboon.

Of course she would have. So would any of the other Repub candidates, whose ineptitude facilitated his rise. But here we are.

 

[Bob001]

No one heard anything else because the GOP made a soundbite out of that half of what she said and she did nothing to counter the sound bite.

After 30+ years in politics, she should have known better than to say "we" if that's not what she meant. She handed a prize to the Repubs. They had no obligation to help her out.

 

[The_Animus]

Does thsi complaint apply equally to Sanders?

No because Sanders has been more or less consistent in his message and beliefs and this is backed by his words and actions over his lifetime. It's why so many progressives like him.