Dems Rebuild

[RedDenver]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

As I've said on here before, all of society has a certain level of socialism.  It's just the way life is.  

However, to be true center, I would assume a person at that point would understand positives and negatives of both capitalism and socialism....and understand there are parts of society where one works better than the other.

 

I don't see that in Bernie.  I can not imagine Bernie ever giving a speech where he explains a situation where capitalism is a good system.

If your standard is giving equal explanation to the benefits of capitalism and socialism, then what candidates stick out? I don't see any capitalists explaining a situation where socialism is a good system.

 

As for Bernie, here's a good article from Forbes and another from Evonomics describing Bernie's economic ideas and how they are actually good for capitalism:

Bernie Sanders As A Democratic Capitalist

Quote

 

The comparison among the candidates is striking. Rolnik concludes,

"...the rules of the game are determined by the sheer power of the vested interests. Energy, agriculture, healthcare, finance, insurance, defense—there is a reason why they spend billions of dollars on lobbying at the federal, state, and congress levels. They are the people influencing the rules of the game and shaping the discourse and narrative in these industries...If we want to move into a more competitive market system, we should support the political revolution of Bernie Sanders."

 

That a University of Chicago economist should write a blog post suggesting that the “democratic socialist” is the most pro-market candidate is...I’m not quite sure what word to use here.  Bizarre?  Ironic?  Shocking? Unexpected, at the very least. But there you have it.

 

 

How Bernie Sanders Was the Only Candidate to Uphold an Essential Pro-Market Principle

[BigRedBuster]

11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

If your standard is giving equal explanation to the benefits of capitalism and socialism, then what candidates stick out? I don't see any capitalists explaining a situation where socialism is a good system.

 

I never said anyone was dead center.

[RedDenver]

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I never said anyone was dead center.

Fair enough. I don't have any problem saying the political compass is inaccurate and Bernie isn't dead center.

 

The other point I was trying to make is that even a self-proclaimed socialist could be good for capitalism, despite the socialist label, because of the policies being forwarded.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Fair enough. I don't have any problem saying the political compass is inaccurate and Bernie isn't dead center.

 

The other point I was trying to make is that even a self-proclaimed socialist could be good for capitalism, despite the socialist label, because of the policies being forwarded.

 

Sure, it all depends on balance and what socialistic policies are being promoted.

 

Military.  We need a strong military and that (to many's chagrin) helps certain parts of the economy.

Interstate Road System. I think that's self explanatory as to how it helps capitalism.

Domestic security (police).  I think everyone would agree that a stable and safe society is good for the economy.

Good and appropriate regulations.  I have preached that capitalism needs appropriate regulations.

 

Where I don't see Bernie in the middle is his pure hatred for corporations.

[RedDenver]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

 

Sure, it all depends on balance and what socialistic policies are being promoted.

 

Military.  We need a strong military and that (to many's chagrin) helps certain parts of the economy.

Interstate Road System. I think that's self explanatory as to how it helps capitalism.

Domestic security (police).  I think everyone would agree that a stable and safe society is good for the economy.

Good and appropriate regulations.  I have preached that capitalism needs appropriate regulations.

 

Where I don't see Bernie in the middle is his pure hatred for corporations.

Again, I'm not defending whether Bernie is in the middle or not. I think the label is more distracting than useful.

 

And I don't see Bernie as having a hatred for corporations. I see him as being against corporations buying our government and against monopolistic corporations both of which lead to extreme income inequality. But that's just how we each see his motives.

 

The real question is what will Bernie's policies do. Do they improve the economy? Do they improve equality (or opportunity or justice or <insert your own concept you care about>)? And is that the direction we as a nation want to go? Is that better or worse than the other candidates?

[Moiraine]

Sanders doesn't hate corporations. He hates that under our laws they are able to do things like this:

 

Overall, General Electric, Boeing and Verizon paid no federal income taxes during the combined 2008 through 2013 tax years. During that period, those three corporate giants racked up combined profits totaling more than $102 billion. In fact, they received income tax rebates from the Internal Revenue Service totaling more than $4.1 billion, according to a report from Citizens for Tax Justice.

 

I fail to see how anyone can think the above is okay and doesn't need fixing.

 

Among other things, he wants to close loopholes that allow corporations to do the above.

[TGHusker]

Question to all:

Should San Fran Nan be restored to House Speaker if the Dems take over the House?

If not - who would you prefer - a more moderate Speaker - more left leaning - one who will reach across the isle or a partisan??

https://www.axios.com/nancy-pelosi-speaker-crowley-schiff-71bdbab3-5ae8-4186-a6ac-e9f55c0ad357.html

Quote

 

Top Democrats tell me that if they take back the House in November, a restoration of Speaker Nancy Pelosi is no longer guaranteed. In fact, some well-wired House Democrats predict she will be forced aside after the election and replaced by a younger, less divisive Dem.

The big picture: Conor Lamb, 33, won his U.S. House race in Pennsylvania this week after saying he wouldn't vote for her for leader — a new template for moderates. Pelosi has hung in through the minority, and remains the party's most consistent fundraiser. As for whether she'll return as Speaker, she has just said that it's up to the members. (Her allies note that she has never lost a leadership vote.)

 

 

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Question to all:

Should San Fran Nan be restored to House Speaker if the Dems take over the House?

If not - who would you prefer - a more moderate Speaker - more left leaning - one who will reach across the isle or a partisan??

https://www.axios.com/nancy-pelosi-speaker-crowley-schiff-71bdbab3-5ae8-4186-a6ac-e9f55c0ad357.html

 

I'd prefer someone that's pro-worker (as opposed to pro-corporation), but really the Dems need a strong leader that can both compromise with the Republicans when helpful and stand unmoving against the Repubs when they try crazy sh!t.

 

I think there's a good chance Pelosi loses her primary and the question of whether she's the leader again becomes moot.

[Danny Bateman]

I myself doubt Pelosi loses her primary. But I wouldn't mind a new leader. We're obviously in an era of change, so why not? 

 

She ushered the ACA through the House, which was absolutely no small feat. She's great at whipping votes, which a Speaker should be. But like it or not, she's uniquely disliked and demonized by her right-wing counterparts and largely viewed as someone who's been around politics too long. Funny how you never hear that complaint about guys...

 

Then again, they just dumped $10M into trying to tie a Dem to her hip in a House race and STILL lost. I'm not sure it's wise to care much how the conservative media apparatus or pols feel about Democratic leaders, because they're going to muckrake them no matter what.

[Danny Bateman]

@RedDenver What do you think of this?

Personally I really like Bryce. He's been a media darling for any folks of a liberal persuasion that are aware of him. I think he's the best candidate and if anyone could knock off the current Speaker, it would someone like him. Working man persona, great personal story, rejecting PAC money and strongly progressive views (universal healthcare, strongly pro-union & wants to fight right-to-work laws, $15 minimum wage, arrested protesting DACA, etc.) is such a strong contrast from someone who's been in Congress forever and seems to have forgotten his district for his position of power.

 

However, they still picked a candidate before the primary. Are your thoughts different on this because they picked the most nationally visible candidate or the most progressive one? I ask because you posted a story about them weighing in on a race in TX and were quite against the move.
 

 

[Moiraine]

Ryan is in (or was in) one of the safest positions in the House (which I assume is why he's Speaker). This is another election where, if it's polling close, I will probably donate to the opponent.

 

I want Ryan and Nunes gone.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Moiraine

[RedDenver]

14 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

@RedDenver What do you think of this?

Personally I really like Bryce. He's been a media darling for any folks of a liberal persuasion that are aware of him. I think he's the best candidate and if anyone could knock off the current Speaker, it would someone like him. Working man persona, great personal story, rejecting PAC money and strongly progressive views (universal healthcare, strongly pro-union & wants to fight right-to-work laws, $15 minimum wage, arrested protesting DACA, etc.) is such a strong contrast from someone who's been in Congress forever and seems to have forgotten his district for his position of power.

 

However, they still picked a candidate before the primary. Are your thoughts different on this because they picked the most nationally visible candidate or the most progressive one? I ask because you posted a story about them weighing in on a race in TX and were quite against the move.
 

 

I'm a big supporter of the Ironstache, but I'm still against the DCCC or any part of the party weighing in on the primaries. I could see a place for it if a candidate was a Neo-Nazi or child molester or something like that, but in this case and the Texas case that's not at issue and the party should let the voters decide.

[Moiraine]

10 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I'm a big supporter of the Ironstache, but I'm still against the DCCC or any part of the party weighing in on the primaries. I could see a place for it if a candidate was a Neo-Nazi or child molester or something like that, but in this case and the Texas case that's not at issue and the party should let the voters decide.

 

 

I agree with that. I mean... it makes logical sense for them to get involved and try to help the person they think has the best chance to defeat Ryan win. But a) I don't trust their judgement and b) they're not extremely well-liked right now. They should support the winner of the primary.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Moiraine

[Danny Bateman]

I'm with the both of you. I'm not sure there's much the Dems could do to improve their image right now, anyway. As unpopular as Trump and the GOP are the Dems aren't far behind in terms of low approval ratings.

 

Maybe they figure they can reverse engineer some popularity by supporting popular candidates like Iron Stache? I don't know what their motives are. On principle I'm still against them weighing in early.

 

I do REALLY want to see Paul Ryan unseated.

[Moiraine]

Unless I'm missing a decent argument out there, the Democrats are being very biased on the citizenship question on the Census. The goal of adding the question is obvious, but that doesn't make it illogical.

 

Non-citizens can't vote and they shouldn't be counted when it comes to representation.

 

The problem is there are plenty more illogical and unfair things that favor the GOP. But I don't think fighting for this is a good look.