RedDenver

I agree either of us could be wrong. 20 people is more anecdote than evidence. Here's an analysis from 538 that's not favorable for Bernie: Bernie Sanders Can Win, But He Isn’t Polling Like A Favorite

now

I'm arguing against your assumption that a "centrist" would appeal to more groups than Bernie. I agree there isn't enough data to say whether that's true or whether Bernie would do better or worse, so saying one candidate or another is more electable or appeals to more groups is just an unsubstantiated opinion.

Can you show us a lie in the Steele dossier? I can't find any evidence of anything in the dossier being disproven.

I see this argument a lot, but I haven't seen any data to back it up. Voters don't vote for left/right, but for a variety of reasons including party, anti-establishment, policies, etc. So it's possible that Bernie could do better among conservatives/Republicans than a "moderate" would. I think the country is against the two parties and the establishment and that populism will be a significant factor in 2020, but we'll have to see.

This already failed in 2016, why should we try it again? Remember Schumer's famous quote: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” Chuck Schumer: Democrats Will Lose Blue-Collar Whites But Gain in the Suburbs

The Steele dossier is mostly confirmed with some of it unconfirmed and none debunked. That's some crazy accurate fiction.

Buttigieg has some explaining to do: Buttigieg's Police Issues Go Beyond Secret Tapes Firing a whistleblower and then firing an attorney for not preventing an investigation that the public safety board voted for is not a good look.

I don't understand this argument at all since it literally applies to every single candidate. In fact, Bernie is the only one who's run as a Presidential candidate before (and Biden if he runs). Plus we heard the same thing last time and how much better Hillary would do in the general, but she didn't do well. It's a crap shoot who'll do well and who won't in some future race, but a good place to start would be with candidates that don't have serious baggage (like being under an FBI investigation).

I see what you're saying, but at what point does that become to the detriment of society? Do you not have to pay taxes for the next 90 years in that scenario? The way I see it is that letting businesses offset their losses is a way to encourage business startups, but if the business still can't make a profit a decade later, then maybe it's time to stop encouraging that business. FYI, I don't think the tax offsets we're talking about are really that big of a deal. I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate to your argument. There's a million other things I'd fix before worrying about loss offsets.

It makes a certain amount of sense except that there should be a sunset or time limit clause IMO. Something like you can only carry it forward for 10 years.

Somebody can correct me, but I think the Green New Deal addresses all of these plus climate change.

off the top of my head: climate change, deregulating banking before the Great Recession, and enacting ineffective banking regulation afterwards On the politics side, under her leadership the Dems lost over 1000 seats across the country and saw the worst state of the party in 100 years.

Watch Bernie on the Fox News townhall. IMO he's going to be much, much better going against the right than any of the "centrist" candidates like Pete or Beto.

Maybe Pelosi has been around long enough that we can say her ideas and politics aren't working. And if the Dems split then the Repubs will have the Presidency for the foreseeable future because of the 270 electors required.

Good points

No matter which Dem makes it into office, we'll have tons of acrimony - just look at the Obama years. This idea that one of these candidates is going to magically bring the Repubs into the land of reasonable discourse is just nonsense. Pete, Beto, Biden, etc. who keep saying flowery stuff about unity and continue to have no policy plans are just going to give us more of the same hope without change that we've had for decades. On a side note, I've been coming to the realization that it doesn't matter all that much who the President is. What we really need is a complete overhaul of Congress, especially the Senate. I don't know how realistic it is for the Dems to take control of both houses, but I'd MUCH rather have control of Congress and let Trump remain in office.

We agree! Look at that, we got some common ground.

Hannity doesn't do news or journalism, he does opinion and editorials. In fact, Hannity has even said he's not a journalist: 'I'm not a journalist!': Hannity defends himself from claims he's a Trump trumpeter Plus Hannity is hardly a non-partisan, non-biased source: Hannity joins Trump on stage despite claiming he wouldn’t But if you trust Hannity, it explains why you've been repeating the Trump rhetoric.

Can you point out a piece of fake evidence?

The report does indeed speak for itself and that isn't what it says. But I appreciate your honesty in acknowledging you don't want to have a logical or factual discussion.

I did, I am, and I will. Care to venture into the land of logic and facts and discuss the report?

Your inability to comment on the facts is noted.