2020 Democratic Nominee

[heso 2848]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

All technology has done has made life easier. Are you still wondering what those whalers are gonna do when O&G comes out? 

You’re example is akin to saying all of the retail sales jobs and cashiers will be getting e-commerce jobs at amazon. 

Except at its peak the us had 640 whaling ships. so that’s what, 10k people whose job it was to catch whales? And that was replaced by O&G industry that created orders of magnitude more jobs. 

So the e-commerce industry is going to create orders of magnitude more jobs than brick and mortar retail? And driverless trucking is going to create orders of magnitude more jobs than driving trucks did? And AI clerical work and low level legal work will create many new jobs?

A comparisons to industrialization is a non starter because the new environment created more jobs. 

A comparison to the switch to a technological economy doesn’t work either because those manufacturing jobs didn’t go away, they went overseas and tech jobs became abundant. 

No one is saying that all trucking, and cashier, and retail, and routine office jobs will be automated. But many of them will. Far more will than what will be created by new industries over the next 20-30 years. 

[bad_teammate 13482]

If we're really concerned that we're not going to have enough jobs to go around...

- Raise wages per hour
- Decrease hours worked

Giving people $1k/mth via a regressive VAT tax isn't going to solve jack shit as far as jobs.

[bad_teammate 13482]

Just re-reading Pete's statement...

"stakeholders in the Middle East"

Fucking kill me.

[heso 2848]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If we're really concerned that we're not going to have enough jobs to go around...

- Raise wages per hour
- Decrease hours worked

Giving people $1k/mth via a regressive VAT tax isn't going to solve jack shit as far as jobs.

I can’t disagree with any of that.  

it’s something that will need to be discussed at a higher level than comparisons to whaling and blacksmithing. 

but it’s not a problem of right now so it will get ignored until it is. 

[Rougarou 594]

21 minutes ago, heso said:

Far more will than what will be created by new industries over the next 20-30 years. 

Not sure I agree with your police work, Lou.

Lots of things give the opposite of your thesis headwind. I won't get into a deeper dive here because a) it's boring and b) nobody would read it anyways, but, here is a bulleted list for why I am betting opposite of you:

• Upskilling
• Freedom from apparatchik work to be creative and innovative and be a human being
• aforementioned innovation
• Positive gains in mental wellness/mental health

[workswithseed 2201]

7 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Not sure I agree with your police work, Lou.

Lots of things give the opposite of your thesis headwind. I won't get into a deeper dive here because a) it's boring and b) nobody would read it anyways, but, here is a bulleted list for why I am betting opposite of you:

• Upskilling
• Freedom from apparatchik work to be creative and innovative and be a human being
• aforementioned innovation
• Positive gains in mental wellness/mental health

I mean, hopefully. I see Alaska and think that most people will get drunk and do drugs. I mean it's cool, but it's not filling.

 

[bad_teammate 13482]

12 minutes ago, heso said:

but it’s not a problem of right now so it will get ignored until it is. 

Nah, all we need is a powerful labor movement to counterbalance the power of the elite wealth class. The only way we move towards higher wages and shorter hours is through labor power.

We need a wealth cap. Automation isn't spurred by customer desire but by profit-seeking.

Give us the choice between a Chick-Fil-A drive-thru with 3 workers outside taking and handing out orders and the inside stuffed with smiling workers and we take that happily over the touch screen kiosks and order-ahead apps.

We'll choose the school with enough teachers for a 10:1 ratio and we choose that over a 40:1 ratio with most kids in front of a computer doing algorithm-determined lessons.

We'll choose the hospitals with enough staff to see every patient in a timely manner.

We'll choose the neighborhood with enough maintenance attention to keep the sidewalks trimmed and maintained.

We'll choose the city with the crews and materials to keep the roads pothole-free.

We'll choose the public transportation that is well-maintained and properly staffed.

We'll choose the superstore with employees roaming the aisles ready to answer questions and cashiers filling up the checkout.

Profit-seeking is what prevents this better future. We don't need to eliminate profit-seeking completely, but we need to reign in its scope tremendously.

[F250 29178]

48 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If we're really concerned that we're not going to have enough jobs to go around...

- Raise wages per hour
- Decrease hours worked

Giving people $1k/mth via a regressive VAT tax isn't going to solve jack shit as far as jobs.

 

[AngryDragon 273]

53 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If we're really concerned that we're not going to have enough jobs to go around...

- Raise wages per hour
- Decrease hours worked

Giving people $1k/mth via a regressive VAT tax isn't going to solve jack shit as far as jobs.

It's not supposed to solve shit as far as jobs. 

[bad_teammate 13482]

Just now, AngryDragon said:

It's not supposed to solve shit as far as jobs. 

Andrew Yang disagrees. This is his entire gimmick.

Our economic numbers need to measure what matters. We know stock market prices don’t mean much to the 78 percent of workers in this country who are living paycheck to paycheck or the 40 percent of workers who are a $400 bill away from financial crisis.

We need to move to a human-centered capitalism, where the market serves us instead of the other way around. That starts by investing $1,000 per month in every adult so that we can build a trickle-up economy, as I have proposed, with the proper measurements and incentives.

 

[AngryDragon 273]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Andrew Yang disagrees. This is his entire gimmick.

Our economic numbers need to measure what matters. We know stock market prices don’t mean much to the 78 percent of workers in this country who are living paycheck to paycheck or the 40 percent of workers who are a $400 bill away from financial crisis.

We need to move to a human-centered capitalism, where the market serves us instead of the other way around. That starts by investing $1,000 per month in every adult so that we can build a trickle-up economy, as I have proposed, with the proper measurements and incentives.

 

Where in that statement does that have anything to do with your statement of creating jobs/solving unemployment? That really isn't the point of the dividend. 

[bad_teammate 13482]

The entire article is about job loss to automation. The only solution or idea presented in the article is the dividend.

Can you tell me what the point of the dividend is if it has nothing to do with jobs?

Can you tell me why Yang ties job loss via automation to the dividend if it has nothing to do with jobs?

[bad_teammate 13482]

The Freedom Dividend - from Yang's website

---------------------------------------
A Universal Basic Income at this level would permanently grow the economy by 12.56 to 13.10 percent—or about $2.5 trillion by 2025—and it would increase the labor force by 4.5 to 4.7 million people.  Putting money into people’s hands and keeping it there would be a perpetual boost and support to job growth and the economy.
---------------------------------------

"It's not supposed to solve shit as far as jobs."

Andrew Yang disagrees.

[AngryDragon 273]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The entire article is about job loss to automation. The only solution or idea presented in the article is the dividend.

Can you tell me what the point of the dividend is if it has nothing to do with jobs?

Can you tell me why Yang ties job loss via automation to the dividend if it has nothing to do with jobs?

 

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

If we're really concerned that we're not going to have enough jobs to go around...

- Raise wages per hour
- Decrease hours worked

Giving people $1k/mth via a regressive VAT tax isn't going to solve jack shit as far as jobs.

Yes, the dividend is in response to job automation and job loss. My earlier response was more about your particular response above. Personally, I like Bernie and I'll gladly vote for him if he's the candidate but Yang is the only one in this field who actually seems to be forward thinking and has a handle on a lot of the underlying issues. 

[bad_teammate 13482]

3 minutes ago, AngryDragon said:

Yes, the dividend is in response to job automation and job loss. My earlier response was more about your particular response above. Personally, I like Bernie and I'll gladly vote for him if he's the candidate but Yang is the only one in this field who actually seems to be forward thinking and has a handle on a lot of the underlying issues. 

It is idiotic to claim that Andrew fucking Yang is the only one up there thinking about jobs. He's on stage with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for Christ's sake. They've been pounding the drums about the death of good-paying work for decades.

You can't even explain how Yang's UBI addresses job loss via automation, and neither can he.

Yet Bernie has a full-on jobs plan that actually makes sense and deals directly with the problem.

Jobs for All

- Enact a federal jobs guarantee, to ensure that everyone is guaranteed a stable job that pays a living wage.
- Create 20 million jobs as part of the Green New Deal, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and creating a 100% sustainable energy system.
- Create millions of healthcare jobs to support our seniors and people with disabilities in their homes and communities.
- Create new jobs in early childhood education.

 

[AngryDragon 273]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It is idiotic to claim that Andrew fucking Yang is the only one up there thinking about jobs. He's on stage with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for Christ's sake. They've been pounding the drums about the death of good-paying work for decades.

You can't even explain how Yang's UBI addresses job loss via automation, and neither can he.

Yet Bernie has a full-on jobs plan that actually makes sense and deals directly with the problem.

Jobs for All

- Enact a federal jobs guarantee, to ensure that everyone is guaranteed a stable job that pays a living wage.
- Create 20 million jobs as part of the Green New Deal, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and creating a 100% sustainable energy system.
- Create millions of healthcare jobs to support our seniors and people with disabilities in their homes and communities.
- Create new jobs in early childhood education.

 

Clearly I never said that he's the only thinking about jobs.  Yang's point is that those jobs aren't coming back and they aren't. His proposal is to give Americans a base to start from and a way forward in a new economy. 

[bad_teammate 13482]

2 minutes ago, AngryDragon said:

Clearly I never said that he's the only thinking about jobs.  Yang's point is that those jobs aren't coming back and they aren't. His proposal is to give Americans a base to start from and a way forward in a new economy. 

How is $12k/year going to give a 58-year-old trucker "a new way forward"? That is rhetoric. That's a TED talk.

And who says the jobs are coming back? No one is. Even Joe is out there saying they're dead so just learn to code. Is Yang in the primary against Trump?

[workswithseed 2201]

 

[bad_teammate 13482]

The anti-war candidate.

[henrygandorf 29223]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The anti-war candidate.
 

i applaud the effort, but what happens when the president does it without congressional authorization?

[bad_teammate 13482]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i applaud the effort, but what happens when the president does it without congressional authorization?

Look, henry, I know you're a big fan of a guy who got deep in the shit and is capable of some Martin Sheen style wetworks, but not every candidate is a credible assassin who can stop a rogue president with a well-placed poison dart.

So I think what we'll have to settle for is a potential nominee to run against Donald who has excellent anti-war credibility and will run very hard (and very successfully) on painting himself as the dove and Donald as a blind, idiotic warhawk who kills Americans and wastes their money in boondoggles overseas.

Then Bernie wins in 2020 and becomes Commander-in-Chief, ending the wars and bringing the troops home.

Something to that effect.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

The more likely scenario is Bernie becomes president and all our enemies immediately surrender rather than face the wrath of the God Emperor. 

[bad_teammate 13482]

Shai Jewlud

[henrygandorf 29223]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Look, henry, I know you're a big fan of a guy who got deep in the shit and is capable of some Martin Sheen style wetworks, but not every candidate is a credible assassin who can stop a rogue president with a well-placed poison dart.

So I think what we'll have to settle for is a potential nominee to run against Donald who has excellent anti-war credibility and will run very hard (and very successfully) on painting himself as the dove and Donald as a blind, idiotic warhawk who kills Americans and wastes their money in boondoggles overseas.

Then Bernie wins in 2020 and becomes Commander-in-Chief, ending the wars and bringing the troops home.

Something to that effect.

yeah, my post wasn't about pete at all, but cool story.

trump has disregarded congress time and time again.  not sure another bill collecting dust on mitch's desk will move the needle, but like i said, i applaud the effort.

[bad_teammate 13482]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

trump has disregarded congress time and time again.  not sure another bill collecting dust on mitch's desk will move the needle, but like i said, i applaud the effort.

So what's the actual point you're making, henry? Is it against electoralist democracy in favor of direct action? Because if so, that's about 20x cooler a take than I thought possible from you.

Or are you just doing the "And yet he lives in a society" thing?

[henrygandorf 29223]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

So what's the actual point you're making, henry? Is it against electoralist democracy in favor of direct action? Because if so, that's about 20x cooler a take than I thought possible from you.

at the risk of changing your perception of my coolness level, i think that until trump proves that he can participate in an actual democracy, measures like announcing a bill via twitter seem rather insignificant.  but i know you hate process stories.

and to keep this on the topic of the thread, i would much rather see bernie and his fellow democratic congressmen out in front of tv cameras denouncing this type of unilateral action from the orange shitstain in the oval office.  but i guess a strongly worded tweet from ro is almost as good. 

[henrygandorf 29223]

also bonus points for electoralism.   hadn't heard that in a while.

[bad_teammate 13482]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

at the risk of changing your perception of my coolness level, i think that until trump proves that he can participate in an actual democracy, measures like announcing a bill via twitter seem rather insignificant. 

What would you prefer? What better things are other representatives/candidates doing?

If you can't answer those, ask yourself why you feel the need to shit on the person seemingly doing the most.

Quote

and to keep this on the topic of the thread, i would much rather see bernie and his fellow democratic congressmen out in front of tv cameras denouncing this type of unilateral action from the orange shitstain in the oval office.

 

Quote

  but i guess a strongly worded tweet from ro is almost as good. 

Legislation filed by Congressmen, not a tweet. But continue to enjoy shitting on the people working hardest to prevent war. It's a good look.

[Guest Lobo]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

also bonus points for electoralism.   hadn't heard that in a while.

Contestant: "Can you use it a sentence, please?"  

Moderator:  "Hugo Stiglitz had an 'electoralism' after going back to 1988 to help Gary Hart zip his pants up to become President, sending the nation on a different course."  

[henrygandorf 29223]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What would you prefer? 

i said it two sentences later.

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What better things are other representatives/candidates doing?

nothing better, and not enough.  i've never said otherwise.

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

 

i had already watched this, and it's a good start (although i would prefer more trump-bashing and less "i was right" but i do love it when he plays the hits).  over the next few days, i would like to see bernie lead the charge on this in a more public way.  all over cable news today i saw republicans and their talking points.  it's sickening.  the closest thing i saw to a dem's criticism/analysis was susan rice, and i don't think she really qualifies.  we get bernie on closed-circuit bernie-tv and biden tosses a quick one-liner out there.  again, it's not enough.

so take a deep breath or do whatever you have to do to read a sentence and realize not everything is an attack on you or bernie.  just because your move is shitting on things doesn't mean we all operate that way.  and just because you hate pete doesn't mean i hate bernie.  i doubt you could find a negative thing i've ever said about bernie, in fact.  although i've never really liked ro khanna, admittedly.

20 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Legislation filed by Congressmen, not a tweet. But continue to enjoy shitting on the people working hardest to prevent war. It's a good look.

literally what i said was "announcing a bill via twitter", but sure.

[bad_teammate 13482]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

we get bernie on closed-circuit bernie-tv and biden tosses a quick one-liner out there.

PBS was there and broadcast it. Bernie can't force the major networks to come to his events and speeches.

And he's done it plenty of times in the past.

 

Quote

literally what i said was "announcing a bill via twitter", but sure.

Here's what you literally said, "but i guess a strongly worded tweet from ro is almost as good."

You're attacking the people in the race who are doing the most to speak out forcefully against war in Iran and introducing legislation to try and stop war in Iran. 

[henrygandorf 29223]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Here's what you literally said, "but i guess a strongly worded tweet from ro is almost as good."

i said both.  announcing the bill via twitter, referring to the actual legislation.  and a strongly worded tweet, referring to ro's tweet above the fold.  everybody wins.

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You're attacking the people in the race who are doing the most to speak out forcefully against war in Iran and introducing legislation to try and stop war in Iran. 

nope.  i'm not attacking anybody except trump.  in my first post about it, i said i applaud the effort.  i wasn't being sarcastic.  again, not everything is an attack.  i asked what happens when he does things without congressional approval, just like he did this.  he acts without congress all the time, and didn't even notify the gang of 8 when assassinating a foreign general.  i'm not ok with his constant shitting on the constitution and ignoring the other branches of govt, and yes, i would like to see everyone do more, especially those with a platform.  right now, the system is broken, and unfortunately, proposing bills that have no chance of even seeing a vote isn't something that is effective anymore.  it sucks.

if you feel the need to pick apart what i've said, just neg-rep me or something instead, i'm going to dinner.

[bad_teammate 13482]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i wasn't being sarcastic.

lol ok bud

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Can y’all just fuck already and be done with the angry foreplay?

You’re mirror images of each other - you’re just slavishly devoted to opposite side of the same coin.

Might as well make peace so y’all can fall in line under Creepy Uncle Joe.

[henrygandorf 29223]

whatever he started it. 

[GSU&UT 1799]

Smooth Bernie take my energy

 

[Js1 86957]

Bernie in a tie in Iowa and winning NH? Why, I swear I saw that happen. And then Hillary decimated him in primaries that weren’t like super white bread. 

[bad_teammate 13482]

We had a new poll every three seconds for months, but here at the end they stopped... Right when Bernie is peaking before the votes...

WEIRD!!!!!

[bad_teammate 13482]

Bernie in a tie in Iowa and winning NH? Why, I swear I saw that happen. And then Hillary decimated him in primaries that weren’t like super white bread. 

How did that work out for Hillary?

[GSU&UT 1799]

14 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Bernie in a tie in Iowa and winning NH? Why, I swear I saw that happen. And then Hillary decimated him in primaries that weren’t like super white bread. 

Hey, let's take a look at California.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-6879.html

Huh looks just like Iowa and NH. Biden will win SC, but SC isn't representative of the entire country either.

[washparkhorn 9967]

California moving up its primary to early March is under appreciated in the 2020 nomination cycle. Bernie has drawn huge crowds and has the momentum. We will see.

Edited January 5, 2020 by washparkhorn

[henrygandorf 29223]

34 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

We had a new poll every three seconds for months, but here at the end they stopped... Right when Bernie is peaking before the votes...

WEIRD!!!!!

it’s because polls are completely meaningless /hugo

[Js1 86957]

49 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

We had a new poll every three seconds for months, but here at the end they stopped... Right when Bernie is peaking before the votes...

WEIRD!!!!!

Sure Jan

impeachment polls took over. Are you donating to the orgs that poll? It’s expensive. 

46 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

56 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Bernie in a tie in Iowa and winning NH? Why, I swear I saw that happen. And then Hillary decimated him in primaries that weren’t like super white bread. 

How did that work out for Hillary?

She beat Bernie and won the nomination? 

[bad_teammate 13482]

Imagine seeing a poll that has nothing to do with Hillary and it sending you into #StillWithHer rage in January 2020.

Hillary lost Michigan and Wisconsin to Bernie and then again to Trump. She dominated Bernie in states she lost in the general by double digits.

[bad_teammate 13482]

Bloombergmentum

[Biff Tannen 46063]

Who the fuck are all these Biden fans?  They have to be people that just don’t pay attention and recognize his name right?

[Rougarou 594]

14 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Who the fuck are all these Biden fans?  They have to be people that just don’t pay attention and recognize his name right?

Yes. Which is the majority of America. We get tricked into thinking our peers and online friends is what it looks like for everyone, extrapolated, but the for the vast of America, it's a politics desert. My family at Thanksgiving had never even heard of Mayor Pete. All they know is Trump and Biden. I don't think a ton of people watch debates, etc.

Just look at the voter turnout numbers...which is why B-T has hammered the point, the key to victory is voter turn out. That's the easiest lever to pull to get gains immediately (as opposed to winning over hearts and minds in a war of attrition and bayonatte fighting over politics and root issues for a generation).

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

Who the fuck are all these Biden fans?  They have to be people that just don’t pay attention and recognize his name right?

The combination of Biden, Pete and Klobuchar have 53% of the Iowa poll. Those are typical Dems. They also voted for Obama over Clinton. They want to win, achieve things through legislation, and for politics in general to quiet down. They aren’t progressive maximalists. They will vote for Warren or Bernie, but hope it doesn’t come to that.

 

What the Democratic Left and twitterati doesn’t seem to understand (much like conservatives, who labor under a similar delusion) is that as of right now the Democratic majority is not especially progressive or even ideological. And that’s not the white men either. The party is a big, diverse coalition of people who want stuff. Action on the climate, guns, free trade, bigger checks, more parental leave, collective bargaining rights, etc. Lots of different things. We have things in common like Healthcare, but lots of opinions about how to get them. It’s not an ideological movement.

 

At this moment the single specific we all agree on is that we want to beat Republicans and agree to work together to do that.

 

[bad_teammate 13482]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What the Democratic Left and twitterati doesn’t seem to understand (much like conservatives, who labor under a similar delusion) is that as of right now the Democratic majority is not especially progressive or even ideological. And that’s not the white men either. The party is a big, diverse coalition of people who want stuff. Action on the climate, guns, free trade, bigger checks, more parental leave, collective bargaining rights, etc. Lots of different things. We have things in common like Healthcare, but lots of opinions about how to get them. It’s not an ideological movement.

Cool... so... what?

Quote

At this moment the single specific we all agree on is that we want to beat Republicans and agree to work together to do that.

Ok.

[washparkhorn 9967]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/04/elections-2018-democrats-history-liberal-progressive-socialist-222187

White Suburban Democrats don't know history

"Democrats Aren’t Moving Left. They’re Returning to Their Roots.

Many on both sides are worried about the party’s leftward swing. They say it’s a deviation from the mainstream. It’s not.

Be advised: “Democrats are in danger of going too far left in 2018.” So warn Republicans like Mitt Romney and ex-Democrats like Joe Lieberman and public personae as diverse as James Comey and Howard Schultz. In recent months, the pundit class has determined that the party’s leftward lurch heralds the rise of a “liberal tea party”—a movement that could very well unmoor Democrats from their longstanding center-left traditions, in close imitation of the spiral of events that caused the Republican Party to turn sharply to the right in recent years.

What’s fueling this argument? For one, more Democrats have rallied, either noisily or cautiously, around such policy innovations as “Medicare for all,” universal college and a universal basic income. That a smattering of Democratic candidates have elected to call themselves “democratic socialists” has only fueled the claim that such programs are “socialist.” “The center is Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, not Eugene Debs and Michael Harrington,” warned New York Times opinion columnist Bret Stephens recently. (Debs and Harrington were self-identified socialists.)

But there’s something wrong with this historical interpretation: Truman strongly supported single-payer health care. Moynihan supported a universal basic income in the 1960s. Dating back to World War II, Democrats sought to make a government-paid education available to as many Americans as possible. If Democrats are marching to the left, that road leads directly back to platforms and politicians who, in their day, commanded wide support and existed firmly in the mainstream of political thought. 

What’s more, to label these programs “socialist”—which is to say, far outside the center of the political spectrum—reveals a constrained worldview. For over six decades, center-right parties in Europe—in Britain and France, Germany and Austria, and almost everywhere between—have either participated in or acceded to the very same policies.

In a remarkable way, today’s debate today strongly resembles a broader discussion that occurred in the United States and Europe in the 1940s, amid wartime mobilization and economic reconstruction, and in the decades following. 

It’s perfectly reasonable to dispute the progressive agenda on its merits. There are strong policy arguments running in both directions. But to argue that it breaks with the party’s roots, or that it falls dangerously outside the mainstream, is ahistorical."