Beto 2020

[troph 25089]

 

No not a bad guy.

 

Emotional and hysterical when challenged?

 

Most definitely.

 

That’s doesn’t bother me and I wouldn’t say hysterical. I’d say passionate.

[bad_teammate 13479]

"Hysterical"

Very sexist. Very problematic. I'm offended.

Hopefully, in the future, you can find a way to not use gendered attacks.

#DoBetter
#BeBest
#FeelingUnsafe
#HitMyVenmo

(fakeedit: Goddamit troph you beat me while I was writing my eat-the-rich speech!)

Just now, BradInATX said:

But I don't think it's the path to victory.

Au contraire, mon'frere, it is the ONLY path to victory.

The American people are angry. They have been fucked over for decades by liars in DC and crooks in Wall Street. They know it, and they're mad. Their children are murdered by police without justice. Their jobs are stolen. Their benefits are cut by all "sides" and when "tough" decisions have to be made THEY are always the one asked to tighten the belt. Their children's futures are dimmer than the ones they faced. The wealthy have more and more and they have less and less. Their husband are in prisons and their sons are overdosing. Their kids can't go to college and get out with low or no debt.

If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.

Anger, my friend, anger.

But know its target.

The Republicans say the target is the minority and the foreigner.
The Democrats say either there are no bad guys or that the bad guys are the white working class itself.

They are both wrong, but there are bad guys: The rich.

The minority and the foreigner hasn't stolen America's wealth. The rich have. The white working class hasn't stolen America's wealth. The rich have.

The minority and the foreigner don't wield DC's power like a club. The rich do. The white working class has more power, but it is only a tool of the rich and the only outcry it was allowed by its paymasters as a ringmaster.

Ignore the ringmaster.

If you want to win, don't lie to the America people and tell them there is no villain in this story. Tell them the truth, as uncomfortable as it might be for your own class interests and goals.

The rich will give it back, or it will be taken from them.

Anger is a gift.

 

 

[troph 25089]

I’m winding down, y’all have at it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I think it’s safe to say Joe the plumber was an imbecile.

[David Dennison 19441]

32 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

No not a bad guy.

Emotional and hysterical when challenged?

Most definitely.

 

So he's a chick?

[Bama Chick 28596]

Yeah I’m cool with sticking with hysterical.

But thanks for mocking what women say about the way that word has been historically used to marginalize women.

Very progressive of you.

Beto asked about Castro -

[bad_teammate 13479]

Man, Castro is froggy as hell!

(Also, I was attempting to mock white lib men who get a little to "ally" with the "hysterical" thing, not women. The "first of all, are you OK?" reply-guys. I apologize if that felt like a gendered attack and I understand how it could be construed that way.)

Edited March 20, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Continental Op 3934]

Holy shit we have over another year of this.  

[bad_teammate 13479]

Just now, Continental Op said:

Holy shit we have over another year of this.  

[Grandioso 2592]

If the rich are eaten alive and their fortunes doled out among us serfs, it will only be because they got too fucking greedy. I mean seriously, all they had to do was not ask for and receive that UMPTEENTH tax cut while the middle class stagnated, got poorer, and lost the ability to buy the shit all the rich folks were selling. 

[BradInATX 9208]

35 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"Hysterical"

Very sexist. Very problematic. I'm offended.

Hopefully, in the future, you can find a way to not use gendered attacks.

#DoBetter
#BeBest
#FeelingUnsafe
#HitMyVenmo

(fakeedit: Goddamit troph you beat me while I was writing my eat-the-rich speech!)

Au contraire, mon'frere, it is the ONLY path to victory.

The American people are angry. They have been fucked over for decades by liars in DC and crooks in Wall Street. They know it, and they're mad. Their children are murdered by police without justice. Their jobs are stolen. Their benefits are cut by all "sides" and when "tough" decisions have to be made THEY are always the one asked to tighten the belt. Their children's futures are dimmer than the ones they faced. The wealthy have more and more and they have less and less. Their husband are in prisons and their sons are overdosing. Their kids can't go to college and get out with low or no debt.

If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.

Anger, my friend, anger.

But know its target.

The Republicans say the target is the minority and the foreigner.
The Democrats say either there are no bad guys or that the bad guys are the white working class itself.

They are both wrong, but there are bad guys: The rich.

The minority and the foreigner hasn't stolen America's wealth. The rich have. The white working class hasn't stolen America's wealth. The rich have.

The minority and the foreigner don't wield DC's power like a club. The rich do. The white working class has more power, but it is only a tool of the rich and the only outcry it was allowed by its paymasters as a ringmaster.

Ignore the ringmaster.

If you want to win, don't lie to the America people and tell them there is no villain in this story. Tell them the truth, as uncomfortable as it might be for your own class interests and goals.

The rich will give it back, or it will be taken from them.

Anger is a gift.

 

 

Man, I agree with just about everything you're saying. But here's the thing. There are two ways to create significant change like you're talking about. One is through violent revolution, which would likely be the end of our country as we know it. The other is to work it through the systems we already have in place, and ultimately change those systems.

There are just those of us who don't think that we're quite there to work it through the systems we have in place. The middle 40% or whatever, those who aren't Trump voters but aren't as far left as Bernie, you need those people to win elections. And I don't think those people are quite ready for the revolutionary type campaign that you are looking for. I think ultimately it's a general election loser. I'm glad that Bernie and Warren are out there talking about things like a huge tax increase on the top 1%. It opens those things up for conversation and it greases the skids for a future where grand ideas are viable in that middle 40%. But I don't think we're there yet.

Just be careful who you are labeling your ideological enemy. There are people right under your nose with the same anti-authority and eat-the-rich streaks that you have, that share the same end goal as you and just disagree with you on the route to get there. Those people are your ally, not your enemy.

Edited March 20, 2019 by BradInATX

[BradInATX 9208]

But anyway, back to Beto.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Beto goes hard to the paint on Trump in this clip

Edited March 20, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bama Chick 28596]

Lots of folks. Again.

[bad_teammate 13479]

All right, some data on the Beto thing. If we're going to look at him as an Obama-type, then it might be instructive to look at Obama's primary polls.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Obama got into the race on February 11, 2007

Obama did not get his first poll lead over Hillary until 11 months later.

In December of 2018, Hillary was ~+20 over Obama.

In January of 2018, Hillary fell. And fell. And fell.

Once he took that lead, he didn't really relinquish it.

So what happened?

He won Iowa on January 3rd and New Hampshire on January 8th.

So for Beto, he doesn't really need to out-poll Sanders or Biden. If he's raising good money and building a good ground game in the early states he can make his mark in those first two primaries. On the flip side, if Beto blows up the polls, don't get too excited.

[ChiTownDoc 21323]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, if you hadn’t completely made an ass of yourself, you sealed it with the straw man.
Nobody here is saying “don’t raise taxes.” In fact, what most everyone is saying is that we should consider several approaches, which could be used alone or in combination, depending on the analysis. For example, I think that we should look at 1) raising the cap on contributions, 2) means testing, and 3) raising the retirement age.

There’s wiggle room in all of them. The point is to reach solvency without hurting the people who really need it. That may mean 1) getting more money in from people who can afford it (the only approach you are willing to consider), 2) paying less out to people who don’t need it, and 3) shortening the amount of time over which we make payments, perhaps to get it closer to what it was when we created SS.

But you...Classic “when all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.” We get it - TAX THE RICH. The thing is, most folks here don’t oppose that tool, within reason. We just know that solving problems usually requires multiple tools.

If you want to know why Bernie bros have a hard time rallying support, your analysis should start with the mirror.

Got damn.  Once again.  You complete me.  No homo.  

[ChiTownDoc 21323]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, if you hadn’t completely made an ass of yourself, you sealed it with the straw man.
Nobody here is saying “don’t raise taxes.” In fact, what most everyone is saying is that we should consider several approaches, which could be used alone or in combination, depending on the analysis. For example, I think that we should look at 1) raising the cap on contributions, 2) means testing, and 3) raising the retirement age.

There’s wiggle room in all of them. The point is to reach solvency without hurting the people who really need it. That may mean 1) getting more money in from people who can afford it (the only approach you are willing to consider), 2) paying less out to people who don’t need it, and 3) shortening the amount of time over which we make payments, perhaps to get it closer to what it was when we created SS.

But you...Classic “when all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.” We get it - TAX THE RICH. The thing is, most folks here don’t oppose that tool, within reason. We just know that solving problems usually requires multiple tools.

If you want to know why Bernie bros have a hard time rallying support, your analysis should start with the mirror.

For the millionth time, I'm all about getting taxed.  Even well past 50%.  But that isn't going to fix shit.  The government is wasteful as all fucking hell and needs to completely change the way they manage funds before we give them more money.   Say you have a group of friends and one of them gets 100K in gambling debt.  Does everyone go, man if we can just chip in 5K each we can completely dig DonnyDipshit out of this hole!  Fuck no, everybody knows that hit of money isn't going to fix a damn thing.  You try to fix the underlying problem first. 

Here's some very important issues.  Everybody hates Congress but they love their congress person.  That's because that guy/gal gets whatever special interest BS passed for his small lot of land in whereeverthefuck.  Then since he got his, he votes for his pal somewhere else to also get his.  Then you throw in special interests and lobby groups that have literally unlimited cash to buy their politicians.  All this shit needs to end or be highly regulated.  Then come talk to me about jacking taxes way up and balancing the budget.  The system is broke as fuck.  Throwing more money at it will NOT fix shit. 

[F250 29174]

28 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Beto goes hard to the paint on Trump in this clip

That was a great criticism against Trump and Trumpism. Donald is so damn bad that Beto doesn't even need to go negative but just point out the obvious malice coming from this administration.

 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Did I just order a lawn sign, a sticker for my car, two T-shirts, and donate $25 more?

Maybe.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Beto’s campaign style is something like I’ve never seen with the harmonization of social media and nomadic series of intimate stump speeches. 

He’s clearly taking the mojo he had in Texas run to the next level. Except this time he doesn’t have spend 85% of his time in rural areas that aren’t going to vote for him anyway. 

[scottsins 2040]

Beto’s campaign style is something like I’ve never seen with the harmonization of social media and nomadic series of intimate stump speeches. 
He’s clearly taking the mojo he had in Texas run to the next level. Except this time he doesn’t have spend 85% of his time in rural areas that aren’t going to vote for him anyway. 

NSIAP, but I read an article the other day which highlighted the numerous Bernie 2016 social media staffers that joined Beto 2020.

[bad_teammate 13479]

38 minutes ago, scottsins said:

NSIAP, but I read an article the other day which highlighted the numerous Bernie 2016 social media staffers that joined Beto 2020.

How Beto Built His Texas-Sized Grassroots Machine

So he shopped around for something — and someone — that could make that happen. To understand what Beto built, you need to understand what Bernie built. And to do that, you need to know who Becky Bond is.

A Californian with short, silver-streaked hair and and dark-rimmed glasses, Bond is something of a legend in progressive organizing circles.

The Obama '08 campaign really opened the door for national campaigns to take on the protocols of local progressive organizing. Obama '08 was more centralized than Bernie '16/Beto '18, however, because Obama '08 was able to coordinate with the DNC in a way that Bernie '16 wasn't (shared lists, foreknowledge of plans, etc...).

Also, Bernie '16/Beto '18 didn't bother with a lot of microtargeting, which Obama '08 relied on to a bigger extent. In fact, the ultimate failure of both Bernie '16/Beto '18 might be evidence that the punk rock ethos lacks organization. I honestly think Bernie '20/Beto '20 will be a bit more traditional than their previous campaigns.

The solution was “distributed organizing,” as they dubbed it. With this, Bernie’s organizers began giving volunteers all the tools they needed to scale up the campaign, even in places where they previously had no presence. Organizers flew around the country holding “barnstorming” meetings to recruit and train volunteers to run their own phone bank, text and block-walk operations. That was one of the most revolutionary things about Bernie’s campaign and it became a cornerstone of O’Rourke’s.

It was a stark departure from the highly professionalized campaigns that made a fetish of Big Data, mining terabytes of information to help slice and dice the electorate. Bond saw the traditional approach as a dangerous strategy that incentivized a path to “50 percent of the vote plus one” and played a big part in Clinton’s loss to Trump.

Yet another interesting thing to keep an eye on.

 

 

[Dahobbs 18190]

9 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Beto goes hard to the paint on Trump in this clip

And this is why I think Beto needs to be the candidate. I entirely get Bad_teammates' point of view. He wants big ideas to solve the worlds problems and he wants them implemented. But, what I see as the biggest challenge for this country moving forward isn't immigration, or climate change, or Russian interference, or healthcare. It is rediscovering a willingness to listen and understand perspectives different than our own. It is moving past the divisive my way or the highway attitude, whether that is Trump demanding money for his wall or Bad_teammate declaring that anyone who doesn't embrace his path for caring for the poor and elderly is his enemy. Before we can solve the world's problems, we first have to be willing to have actual discussions about them. We have to be willing to consider and evaluate our available options. And we cannot do any of that if we respond to every counterpoint by plugging our ears or by, like Trump, declaring every dissent an act of treason. 

Policy is important. But right now the most important policy needed for this country is the policy of niceness. If we can implement that, I am confident that we will solve our other problems in time. If we don't, Brisket has whiskey and a warm seat saved on his ledge. 

[Js1 86939]

That's cute and all, but one political party has made it known they are never ever ever ever ever ever going to be willing to listen, understand different perspectives, or "be nice."  

[bad_teammate 13479]

I know talking about specific things and making historical references upsets you guys a lot, and I apologize in advance for the emotional triggering that's going to happen, but when someone says, with a straight face, that "the most important policy needed for this country is the policy of niceness" and that Trump and progressives are basically the same, you really should try to learn the most recent lesson available about that approach.

Among safe and comfortable populations, "America is already great! Be nice!" gets you a lot of votes in the suburbs among the well-cosseted. Their lives are safe and warm and pretty and they think of "politics" as this nasty thing that's so negative on TV and the Internet. If only all this mean yelling would stop then their lives would be safer and warmer and prettier and they wouldn't feel so much stress.

So you can run that message out, win a bunch of happy white suburbanites whose lives are serene and secure, and then lose because you don't even pay attention to the poor and working classes. That was Hillary's play to win the suburbs, and it got her the most humiliating defeat in US history and landed us with a fraud and criminal in the White House.

However, "politics" IS life or death for millions of Americans.

“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

Do you seriously think you're a mature thinker about how to win an election when you're saying things like, "right now the most important policy needed for this country is the policy of niceness."?

No, that's not the most important policy needed for this country. Niceness doesn't put food on the table. Niceness doesn't protect the benefits of the poor and elderly. Niceness doesn't fund schools. Niceness doesn't give healthcare to the millions without it. Niceness doesn't stop racist mass murderers. Niceness doesn't make cops stop murdering black men.

And beyond that, toughen the hell up.

--------

So back to the SS debate since you bring it up...

My position is that we should not cut benefits for the poor and elderly until taxing the rich has hit a point of negative returns. I think cutting benefits for the poor and elderly before that point is wrong. Not just "not preferable", but morally wrong.

If this sounds radical, I would love for someone to explain why.

[Dahobbs 18190]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

That's cute and all, but one political party has made it known they are never ever ever ever ever ever going to be willing to listen, understand different perspectives, or "be nice."  

And the way to combat that is to give people another choice. If your only solution is to counteract one unreasonable dogmatic position is another unreasonable dogmatic position, then we are fucked. The only resolution to that conflict is through war. And at the end of it you're still stuck with an unreasonable dogmatic position. 

Also, when I say nice, (and I think when Beto says it), I don't mean be a pushover. You can be nice and stern. For instance, I'm not being mean to my child when I send him to timeout for misbehaving.  I just mean a willingness to engage in thoughtful discussion and to avoid demonizing everyone who disagrees with you.

[bad_teammate 13479]

21 minutes ago, Js1 said:

That's cute and all, but one political party has made it known they are never ever ever ever ever ever going to be willing to listen, understand different perspectives, or "be nice."  

Nice Dem:

"Mitch, my brother. All of us have a vision for a shared human destiny, and here in this beautiful nation, in the home of the brave and land of the free, we find the purest and most noble expression of those visions. We disagree on many things, but all of us worship one good and pledge allegiance to one flag, and in our many shades of thought and race we find the best shared future possible. I would love to work with you and your caucus to make sure America stays the wonderful place it has always been."

Mitch:

[bad_teammate 13479]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

And the way to combat that is to give people another choice. If your only solution is to counteract one unreasonable dogmatic position is another unreasonable dogmatic position, then we are fucked. The only resolution to that conflict is through war. And at the end of it you're still stuck with an unreasonable dogmatic position. 

Also, when I say nice, (and I think when Beto says it), I don't mean be a pushover. You can be nice and stern. For instance, I'm not being mean to my child when I send him to timeout for misbehaving.  I just mean a willingness to engage in thoughtful discussion and to avoid demonizing everyone who disagrees with you.

Bernie = Trump, I love it

The guy who is literally in your caucus and literally votes with you constantly and works with your Senators every day is the same as Trump.

2016 is back, baby, and I love it. I'm here for it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

18 minutes ago, Js1 said:

That's cute and all, but one political party has made it known they are never ever ever ever ever ever going to be willing to listen, understand different perspectives, or "be nice."  

While there’s a lot of truth to this, what choice does the opposition have?  There are only two directions to go and one of them is war.  You are either moving the country towards or away from violent confrontation.  

You have to build a movement loud enough to drown out the voices of hate and division with the rhetoric of love and kindness.  Otherwise you’re just allowing the corrupt to push the country to conflict.

It’s an arduous challenge and I don’t know if it can be done but to not even try seems morally treasonable.  

[Dahobbs 18190]

20 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

--------

So back to the SS debate since you bring it up...

My position is that we should not cut benefits for the poor and elderly until taxing the rich has hit a point of negative returns. I think cutting benefits for the poor and elderly before that point is wrong. Not just "not preferable", but morally wrong.

If this sounds radical, I would love for someone to explain why.

I don't have an issue with that beyond your definition of elderly. No one has suggested cutting benefits for those that need them. We have discussed ways to make the allocation more efficient and effective in targeting those in need. Not everyone over the age of 65 needs social security. Not everyone over the age of 65 is poor. Some of those people, gasp, are in fact the rich you want to tax the hell out of. Well, rather than give in the form of social security and then take back in the form of taxes, why don't we just not give in the first place? That is all a means test is. 

Also, you haven't made any endeavor to determine the "point of negative returns." You apparently assume that whatever that point is, we will never reach it. I assume that we probably will and that as a result we should make sure we use our available money in the most effective way possible. Let's not take just to take. Let's do it with purpose. Let's take what is necessary to accomplish our objective in a way that is fair and sustainable. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Celery Man 21076]

make the changes necessary to restore actual representative democracy in our government, continued attrition from the republicans.  Get the Mueller report.  Eventually they are as relevant as the whigs.

 

I'd like to have the big bold change stuff, I think we should still try to heal.  That's why I'd want Beto as a VP and Mayor Pete or maybe Warren if I was just picking the administration.

[Dahobbs 18190]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie = Trump, I love it

The guy who is literally in your caucus and literally votes with you constantly and works with your Senators every day is the same as Trump.

2016 is back, baby, and I love it. I'm here for it.

Hey man, you're the one that called me the enemy. Not the other way around. And I didn't mention Bernie at all in my post and I wasn't implying anything about him. But if you can't see the danger to your approach and how it is analogous to Trump's, I don't know what to tell ya.

As for Bernie, I like some of his ideas. I don't like others. But I'm willing to listen to the ones I don't like and I'm willing to be convinced they are in fact good. 

[GW Hayduke 1957]

Dems should offer an alternative to hate, division, and demagogy.

We need a candidate that can transcend that. See Beto’s take on kneeling football players.

The platform for Dems seems easy: respect for all citizens and different viewpoints, realign ourselves with our allies, the rule of law, anti-corruption, campaign finance reform, and evidence-based policy making.

We just need an affective candidate that can sell that. The progressives policies will come. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Beto with Warren’s policy is pretty much the unicorn candidate we need IMO.  Mayor Pete is right in that wheelhouse. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[horncyclist 1391]

The policy will ultimately be dictated by House and Senate gains. I think Beto gives us the best chance for those pickups. I want him to continue to commit to the major structural reforms. All the rest would come.

Not left enough for some but Klobuchar would actually be a good running mate for Beto to appeal to the Midwest. Like Warren as a not evil liberal Dick Cheney.

[bad_teammate 13479]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

I don't have an issue with that beyond your definition of elderly. No one has suggested cutting benefits for those that need them.

Then let people opt-out if they don't need them. Let them refuse the check.

I'm fine with means testing as the first method of cuts, but I see no reason to bother with the bureaucracy, confusion, negativity, and unintentional negative consequences of dividing people up until we're approaching actual insolvency.

Quote

Also, you haven't made any endeavor to determine the "point of negative returns."

And neither have any of you. Another classic dodge is to demand a level of specifics you've failed to provide yourself. #sad

Quote

You apparently assume that whatever that point is, we will never reach it.

Based on which specific words of mine do you come up with this assumption? The fact that I say there is a point of negative return means that I believe it's there. You're being purposefully dishonest.

[bad_teammate 13479]

8 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Dems should offer an alternative to hate, division, and demagogy.

We need a candidate that can transcend that. See Beto’s take on kneeling football players.

Beto's take on kneeling football players didn't unite anyone. What are you talking about? He was right in what he said, but it didn't swing a bunch of Republicans over.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Beto's take on kneeling football players didn't unite anyone. What are you talking about? He was right in what he said, but it didn't swing a bunch of Republicans over.

I never said it swung a bunch of republicans.  Strawmen are a sign of a weak position

[Biff Tannen 46061]

32 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I know talking about specific things and making historical references upsets you guys a lot, and I apologize in advance for the emotional triggering that's going to happen, but when someone says, with a straight face, that "the most important policy needed for this country is the policy of niceness" and that Trump and progressives are basically the same, you really should try to learn the most recent lesson available about that approach.

Among safe and comfortable populations, "America is already great! Be nice!" gets you a lot of votes in the suburbs among the well-cosseted. Their lives are safe and warm and pretty and they think of "politics" as this nasty thing that's so negative on TV and the Internet. If only all this mean yelling would stop then their lives would be safer and warmer and prettier and they wouldn't feel so much stress.

So you can run that message out, win a bunch of happy white suburbanites whose lives are serene and secure, and then lose because you don't even pay attention to the poor and working classes. That was Hillary's play to win the suburbs, and it got her the most humiliating defeat in US history and landed us with a fraud and criminal in the White House.

However, "politics" IS life or death for millions of Americans.

“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

Do you seriously think you're a mature thinker about how to win an election when you're saying things like, "right now the most important policy needed for this country is the policy of niceness."?

No, that's not the most important policy needed for this country. Niceness doesn't put food on the table. Niceness doesn't protect the benefits of the poor and elderly. Niceness doesn't fund schools. Niceness doesn't give healthcare to the millions without it. Niceness doesn't stop racist mass murderers. Niceness doesn't make cops stop murdering black men.

And beyond that, toughen the hell up.

--------

So back to the SS debate since you bring it up...

My position is that we should not cut benefits for the poor and elderly until taxing the rich has hit a point of negative returns. I think cutting benefits for the poor and elderly before that point is wrong. Not just "not preferable", but morally wrong.

If this sounds radical, I would love for someone to explain why.

[troph 25089]

Being civil and nice in discourse isn’t about unity it’s about redrawing lines on how to disagree and what is acceptable and what isn’t. We actually have a rise in violence and a rise in disrespect of others. I’m not here to agree with folks I disagree with but trump makes calling me a tranny and me calling you a fuckstain ok. Beto is saying that has to stop. I do think there is middle ground to get reform on a lot of topics but that remains to be seen. We are so far from that we currently need to stop the discourse that leads to name calling, and physical violence.

[Dahobbs 18190]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Then let people opt-out if they don't need them. Let them refuse the check.

I'm fine with means testing as the first method of cuts, but I see no reason to bother with the bureaucracy, confusion, negativity, and unintentional negative consequences of dividing people up until we're approaching actual insolvency.

And neither have any of you. Another classic dodge is to demand a level of specifics you've failed to provide yourself. #sad

Based on which specific words of mine do you come up with this assumption? The fact that I say there is a point of negative return means that I believe it's there. You're being purposefully dishonest.

No, I recognize that I haven't determined that point. I recognize that you haven't determined that point. So, the pragmatic thing is to assume that reaching that point is a possibility and to discuss all of our options for making the system the best it can be. Why can't the process of raising taxes and improving the efficiency of the system be done in tandem? Both are independently good things to do. A more efficient system will work better, will be more sustainable, will be less likely to cause unattended and disastrous economic consequences. 

As for letting them refuse the check, I'm sorry, I thought you wanted the government to force the rich to pay more taxes? Are you actually suggesting that the rich are just going to voluntarily pay more taxes? Isn't this the same thing?

Also, let me shock you for a second: I'm totally on board with raising taxes for reasons other than funding social programs. AOC's 70% income bracket idea? Sounds great, let's do it, but not for revenue generation. Let's do it so we can get our wealth distribution back to a more fair and sustainable model. The current one is just going to lead to revolution and guillotines. See, I'm more progressive than you think. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Not left enough for some but Klobuchar would actually be a good running mate for Beto to appeal to the Midwest. Like Warren as a not evil liberal Dick Cheney.

The VP debate interests me this go around because I’ve always been of the opinion no one votes for Vice President.

 VP choice seems like it can only be a liability and never a significant asset.

How much did Pence help Trump?  Not much but Chris Christie would have hurt him.  

How big a factor was Tim Kaine?  Almost nonexistent which was by design.  

Joe Biden?  Another safe pick.  

Sarah Palin? Kryptonite 

However, this go around, the strategic play would be for the nominee and the runner up to be on the same ticket.  

Imagine if the last race was Hillary/Bernie vs Trump/Cruz.... how would that play out?

The democrats need to publicly display unity more than ever after this primary.  I can’t think of a better way to do that than having the top two candidates join forces.

[Celery Man 21076]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Beto's take on kneeling football players didn't unite anyone. What are you talking about? He was right in what he said, but it didn't swing a bunch of Republicans over.

it kinda seems like at least part of what gets you so agitated is that you're arguing with recent arrivals to the fold who don't pass your lib purity test

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

11 hours ago, troph said:

Yeah anyone that thinks bt is a bad guy is silly and not paying attention.

He's an insufferable cunt.

[Larry T. Spider 1747]

Beto had 128,000 unique contributions in the first 24 hours. Average donation size was $47. Bernie bros attacks continue to fall flat.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Beto had 128,000 unique contributions in the first 24 hours. Average donation size was $47. Bernie bros attacks continue to fall flat.

LOL. This dude is owning the shit out of the narrative right now. He's letting opponents flail at him for a few days then releasing hard proof that they're full of shit. Eventually either those people will stop flailing at him or they will box themselves into the dunce corner of public perception.

[Js1 86939]

But how many of those were Bama Chick and her friends wine drunk and sending donations and "I ❤️ Beto" messages?  

[Larry T. Spider 1747]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

LOL. This dude is owning the shit out of the narrative right now. He's letting opponents flail at him for a few days then releasing hard proof that they're full of shit. Eventually either those people will stop flailing at him or they will box themselves into the dunce corner of public perception.

The Bernie bros will not stop. They lack any self awareness. The ones on twitter “don’t believe the numbers”. Facts are as important to them as they are to trumpsters. Beto people are in for a rude awakening.

[scottsins 2040]

I know talking about specific things and making historical references upsets you guys a lot, and I apologize in advance for the emotional triggering that's going to happen, but when someone says, with a straight face, that "the most important policy needed for this country is the policy of niceness" and that Trump and progressives are basically the same, you really should try to learn the most recent lesson available about that approach.
Among safe and comfortable populations, "America is already great! Be nice!" gets you a lot of votes in the suburbs among the well-cosseted. Their lives are safe and warm and pretty and they think of "politics" as this nasty thing that's so negative on TV and the Internet. If only all this mean yelling would stop then their lives would be safer and warmer and prettier and they wouldn't feel so much stress.
So you can run that message out, win a bunch of happy white suburbanites whose lives are serene and secure, and then lose because you don't even pay attention to the poor and working classes. That was Hillary's play to win the suburbs, and it got her the most humiliating defeat in US history and landed us with a fraud and criminal in the White House.
However, "politics" IS life or death for millions of Americans.
“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
Do you seriously think you're a mature thinker about how to win an election when you're saying things like, "right now the most important policy needed for this country is the policy of niceness."?
No, that's not the most important policy needed for this country. Niceness doesn't put food on the table. Niceness doesn't protect the benefits of the poor and elderly. Niceness doesn't fund schools. Niceness doesn't give healthcare to the millions without it. Niceness doesn't stop racist mass murderers. Niceness doesn't make cops stop murdering black men.
And beyond that, toughen the hell up.
--------
So back to the SS debate since you bring it up...
My position is that we should not cut benefits for the poor and elderly until taxing the rich has hit a point of negative returns. I think cutting benefits for the poor and elderly before that point is wrong. Not just "not preferable", but morally wrong.
If this sounds radical, I would love for someone to explain why.

My only take is that the most important quality/issue from now until 2020 is “can the candidate beat Trump”?

That’s literally the only thing that matters to me right now. Empty suit, progressive, centrist, etc. every alternative is better than 4 more years of DOTARD.

[scottsins 2040]

The Bernie bros will not stop. They lack any self awareness. The ones on twitter “don’t believe the numbers”. Facts are as important to them as they are to trumpsters. Beto people are in for a rude awakening.

I give few shits about anyone’s attacks, as long as the vote Dem in 2020 if the nomination isn’t “their guy”.

I’m skeptical about the loyalty of Bernie supporters, which is why I asked BT for his level of commitment to ANY Dem nominee.

I don’t think I’ve gotten an answer from him yet, but maybe I missed it.

For the record, there isn’t anyone on the Dem slate or even remotely possibly on that slate that I wouldn’t not pull the lever for in 2020.