2020 Presidential election

[Jazzta]

Just now I was watching a Biden interview on CNN thinking who does this guy remind me of? Then it came all of a sudden:

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

But... you said pro-choice and anti-abortion were opposites?

Your posts are approaching ignore-worthy territory. They are opposites. His position is clearly pro-choice. Saying that he is anti-abortion is the opposite of his actual position.

And by the way, would you like me to blow your mind? I am also pro-choice, though I think that positions like Governor Newsome have taken are going way too far. Being partisan does not mean that you support every position of a political platform, though. It means that you strongly identify with one political party over another. Fish is a partisan Democrat. I am a partisan Republican. That is obvious from the opinions each of us express on this site.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Biden is Alive. If voters believe he is viable they will shift from Bloomberg, Pete and Amy to joe.

I’m predicting Biden wins Texas, Bernie wins Cali, and Super Tuesday decides nothing. Then, Moderates rally behind joe and Bernie is bridesmaid again.

Biden is next potus.

I heard that about 50% of Super Tuesday voting was already cast before Biden won SC. i also heard that he had done far less campaigning in other competitors. There's a good chance that SC was too little too late. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Democratic Party attempts to rig things for Biden using their Super Delegates. It stuns me that rank and file Dems are okay with that system.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Legit question for Bernie supporters. If he’s elected President, what good will he actually do so far as income equality? I sincerely mean this. If he’s elected and let’s say minimum wage goes to $15 or thereabouts nationally, the only way I see it playing out is massive layoffs. We’re seemingly already headed to a recession as it is and if he’s elected and gets that minimum wage into place, you can bet your *** companies will lay tens of thousands off, companies will cut back hours from 40 to 24-28 (which has started for years now and would also save them from providing health benefits), and/or go even more automated than we’re already seeing. Because the bottom line is, companies, their CEO’s and their Boards are worried about just that. The bottom line. And if target projections aren’t met or fall massively short, heads will roll and measures will be taken. So I’m sincerely asking, what good will he do for income inequality? Jobs will be lost, hours will be slashed for those who manage to keep their jobs, and more automation will ensue.

Please don’t conflate this with me being a Republican. I’m not. I’m a liberal and voted for Hilary. Please don’t conflate this with me not recognizing that there is income inequality and that something needs to be done. I just don’t see these steps fixing the issues or Bernie even being able to get **** done as I don’t think many in Congress will want to work with him.

So convince me why I’m wrong. How will he help?

And fwiw, I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee, regardless.

This is an excellent summary of why I think he is a terrible candidate. Trump will crucify him with this stuff, and many people who currently could not imagine themselves voting for Trump will either hold their nose and do it, or stay home on voting day.

 

[Jazzta]

Your posts are approaching ignore-worthy territory. They are opposites. His position is clearly pro-choice. Saying that he is anti-abortion is the opposite of his actual position.

And by the way, would you like me to blow your mind? I am also pro-choice, though I think that positions like Governor Newsome have taken are going way too far. Being partisan does not mean that you support every position of a political platform, though. It means that you strongly identify with one political party over another. Fish is a partisan Democrat. I am a partisan Republican. That is obvious from the opinions each of us express on this site.

Depends on what you call partisan Democrat. If you consider a partisan Democrat to be part of a socially conscious platform where there is an acknowledgement of the current unbalance between classes then yes, as a Bernie supporter you could say that he’s a partisan Democrat. I’d be surprised if Fish votes blue no matter who though. But I’ll let him speak for himself of course.

 

[Jazzta]

Then there’s a group of people in which I include myself that I would call “peripheral” voters. Those of us that hope that the swamp really gets drained. This was one of Trumps biggest points in 2016, turns out he’s more swamp than the Everglades.

Sanders is the only candidate that gives me some resemblance of hope in this matter.
A Trump voter gone Sanders, wait whaaaat

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Then there’s a group of people in which I include myself that I would call “peripheral” voters. Those of us that hope that the swamp really gets drained. This was one of Trumps biggest points in 2016, turns out he’s more swamp than the Everglades.

Sanders is the only candidate that gives me some resemblance of hope in this matter.
A Trump voter gone Sanders, wait whaaaat

I believe that many Sanders voters went Trump in 2016. Many young people identify more anti-establishment than they do with either party, so it's not really that surprising. Both Trump and Sanders have arisen from far outside the establishment. They are taking the two major parties farther and farther apart. I would love to see a much more centrist candidate. Klobichar (who has little chance) or Gabbard (who has no chance) are the only Dems I could see myself voting for. I'd prefer someone right of center, though, and that's not going to happen in this cycle.

 

[Jazzta]

I believe that many Sanders voters went Trump in 2016. Many young people identify more anti-establishment than they do with either party, so it's not really that surprising. Both Trump and Sanders have arisen from far outside the establishment. They are taking the two major parties farther and farther apart. I would love to see a much more centrist candidate. Klobichar (who has little chance) or Gabbard (who has no chance) are the only Dems I could see myself voting for. I'd prefer someone right of center, though, and that's not going to happen in this cycle.

Agreed about Gabbard, who is the opposite of centrist/pro-establishment in foreign policy. The reason why she was attacked over it time and time again.

 

[gandalfe]

Your posts are approaching ignore-worthy territory. They are opposites. His position is clearly pro-choice. Saying that he is anti-abortion is the opposite of his actual position.

I'm surprised that your own words are so triggering to you.

I guess I just don't get how you can't understand that anti-abortion and pro-choice are not, actually, opposites. I'm talking about the viewpoints, not the political positions. How someone could say, "I don't like abortion, but if you want one, you should be able to have that choice." I would personally rather nobody ever had an abortion, but that means I would rather people only get pregnant when they want to and that the pregnancies always go well. But because we don't live in that world, I want abortion to be a safe, legal option.

 

[fishonjazz]

Depends on what you call partisan Democrat. If you consider a partisan Democrat to be part of a socially conscious platform where there is an acknowledgement of the current unbalance between classes then yes, as a Bernie supporter you could say that he’s a partisan Democrat. I’d be surprised if Fish votes blue no matter who though. But I’ll let him speak for himself of course.

Hell, last time I voted was for mitt Romney for senator. He is a republican iirc.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Making the rich pay taxes. Take from the rich and give to the poor (in the form of taxing the rich and using those taxes for thing like education and healthcare taking some of the burden off the poor)

40 years ago the richest people in the country paid over 50% in taxes and the income inequality was much less. The rich have been taxed less and less over the years and the gap has grown.

Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

The wealthiest people in the U.S. have their money tied up in assets, including real estate, stocks, trusts, precious metals, etc. You aren't going to be able to tax more than their income, which is a small fraction of their wealth. If you want to raise their income tax by some percentage, go ahead, but it's not going to transform the economy anything like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are saying--e.g., pay for everyone's healthcare, pay for everyone's education, etc. It would have to be middle-class incomes that are taxed to provide those things, which is why it will probably never happen.

Healthcare for all inevitably means that people who work and earn a certain income are leaned on to buy healthcare for people who do not. There's no way around this, regardless of how you present the costs as premiums, deductibles or taxes. This already happens with medicare and programs for people on welfare. Obamacare, which is still in place, expanded this and it pissed a lot of people off when their monthly premiums doubled for the same quality of service. It's one of the issues that got Trump elected and will probably get him re-elected. If you can get pharmaceutical companies to lower their drug costs, go do it, but it's more likely to be a free market economy that achieves this through fair competition.

The U.S. population has expanded dramatically and the economy has transformed dramatically over the past 40+ years. The companies that earn the big money are largely technology and information-based businesses with extreme scalability and efficiency. Andrew Yang is correct when he says that improvements in business efficiency, including the ability to use automation, are displacing workers and adding to income inequality.

Criticize people like Jeff Bezos if you want, but he has also created more jobs for people, including high-paying jobs, than 99.99% of people. His businesses operate with greater precision and efficiency than anything the U.S. government could plan and execute. And if his employees don't want to work there, they can work somewhere else that treats them better and pays more. That's how a free-market economy works. Even Democrats understand this.

 

[fishonjazz]

The wealthiest people in the U.S. have their money tied up in assets, including real estate, stocks, trusts, precious metals, etc. You aren't going to be able to tax more than their income, which is a small fraction of their wealth. If you want to raise their income tax by some percentage, go ahead, but it's not going to transform the economy anything like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are saying--e.g., pay for everyone's healthcare, pay for everyone's education, etc. It would have to be middle-class incomes that are taxed to provide those things, which is why it will probably never happen.

Healthcare for all inevitably means that people who work and earn a certain income are leaned on to buy healthcare for people who do not. There's no way around this, regardless of how you present the costs as premiums, deductibles or taxes. This already happens with medicare and programs for people on welfare. Obamacare, which is still in place, expanded this and it pissed a lot of people off when their monthly premiums doubled for the same quality of service. It's one of the issues that got Trump elected and will probably get him re-elected. If you can get pharmaceutical companies to lower their drug costs, go do it, but it's more likely to be a free market economy that achieves this through fair competition.

The U.S. population has expanded dramatically and the economy has transformed dramatically over the past 40+ years. The companies that earn the big money are largely technology and information-based businesses with extreme scalability and efficiency. Andrew Yang is correct when he says that improvements in business efficiency, including the ability to use automation, are displacing workers and adding to income inequality.

Criticize people like Jeff Bezos if you want, but he has also created more jobs for people, including high-paying jobs, than 99.99% of people. His businesses operate with greater precision and efficiency than anything the U.S. government could plan and execute. And if his employees don't want to work there, they can work somewhere else that treats them better and pays more. That's how a free-market economy works. Even Democrats understand this.

Cool. Some raise in taxes on em is better than none.
Also I think assets can be taxed too. I consider my truck and house to be assets and I get taxed on both. Raise the taxes on the assets of the rich.

The rich provided jobs back in the 70's as well even though they were taxed much more.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app