Hiram, Laurie, Moose, Sean and myself have been discussing how they feel the rules of the game are SO UNFAIR over on Don't Fear the Bernie. Eric's piece seems pretty relevant.
"Which leads back to argument No. 1: that the relatively small policy differences within the Democratic field are not of primary importance. Preventing four more years of Trump is of primary importance. And, even if we can’t rely on current polling (or anything else) to tell us clearly which Democratic nominee would maximize that outcome, that’s the goal that matters.Here was my guidance from the other discussion.
So, fight it out in the primaries and at the convention, sure. But make sure that supporters of Bernie or Pete or Amy or Joe or Mike all keep in mind that it is of the utmost importance that Democrats and persuadable independents of the moderate or far-left variety don’t get so pissed off about not seeing their first choice nominated that they fail to unite behind the last Democrat standing after the convention."
It seems to me that the campaigns are won in mid-size purple states lately. Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, etc... Now how to win these without supporting racist policies:Unfortunately for them, they seem to think these are too GOP for them... Thoughts?
- Support strong border security, policies to dissuade walk up asylum requests and support the removal of illegal residents / workers. There is nothing racist about making people apply and be approved before they can enter and set up residency in the USA.
- Support policies that minimize abortions after the first trimester. Stop referring to only Mother's rights, and start acknowledging fetal rights.
- Support the rights of religious organizations and individuals along with LGBQ+, Women's Rights, etc
- Demand results / improvement from welfare recipients. Stop implying that people are entitled to food, housing, medicine, etc just because they stand on US soil.
- Start promoting merit / productivity based compensation policies within the public employee workforce. Stop supporting time served / degrees oriented compensation and job security methods.
32 comments:
about "Support policies that minimize abortions after the first trimester. Stop referring to only Mother's rights, and start acknowledging fetal rights."
I don't think this would win many voters. Pro-life people don't want any abortions or contraception.
I am not hopeful and think Trump will win. It will be very bad for our country.
Right now Bernie looks like the most likely nominee to me and he will lose. I just hope dems can keep the house.
Please remember that you are not trying to win over the religious right.
You are just trying to convince moderates that you respect the rights of the preemie.
“ Pro-life people don't want any abortions or contraception.”
Why would you think the DEMs would lose the house?
I mean Trump is as bad now as he was in 2018...
Did the DEM candidates get worse?
running a socialist for president makes me nervous. It might impact down ticket races.
running a socialist for president makes me nervous. It might impact down ticket races.
Trump will call any candidate we run a socialist. It is the message he will hammer until election day. One of the things that means is that a desire to avoid that label should influence our choice, because that's something we won't be able to do. Republicans have the advantage here because while Godwin's Law says we can't call them Nazis, it doesn't say anything about their calling us socialists.
--Hiram
Laurie,
I think people will show up for Bernie...
I mean SO MANY Dems truly hate Trump...
It will just be the moderates who may leave the choice of "President" blank because both options are just so TERRIBLE.
Hiram,
I think the opposite of a soft hearted Socialist...
Is a cold blooded Capitalist...
Not sure why you think the Nazis fit in here...
I mean Trump seems to love Israel and the Jews...
It will be hard for Bernie to get 50% or more. I think he will lose bigly.
Well let's both hope the the DEM voters see the light and nominate Amy or Pete... :-)
Either would like be better to energize the DEM base...
It is kind of sad how they fell back to OLD White guys...
I thought that was a GOP thing.
Not sure why you think the Nazis fit in here...
Hitler was very closely aligned with business. His "Make Germany Great Again" policies were very good for business. And of course, he gave them the slave labor capitalists do like.
--Hiram
Hiram,
It is amazing how lowly you think of business owners and managers.
Most of the one's I know have their flaws but do not support slavery.
It is amazing how lowly you think of business owners and managers.
IG FArben was a very profitable company. Mitsubishi made excellent fighters. Business is delivering huge campaign contributions to Donald Trump.
--Hiram
Here is something I have wondered. Trump claimed that foreign countries were cheating us in trade. If they were, why were we dealing with them? If the deals we were making with them weren't to our advantage, why weren't we walking away from them?
--Hiram
"Most of the one's I know have their flaws but do not support slavery."
Given the option, large corporations nearly always put profit over people. It's why Unions were created and why there are laws and regulations again maltreatment of employees.
Capitalism is like the natural world, merciless.
Moose
Hiram and Moose,
It is so strange to listen to your vilifying capitalism and businesses.
Especially since they are the engines that has made the USA into the world power that it is and the reason that our "poor" are wealthy by world standards.
And as always you blame them for doing what every savvy consumer does every day?
The nice thing about businesses is that they have to weigh all kinds of factors before making decisions and taking actions:
- what will my investors think / do
- what will my employees think / do
- what will the government(s) think / do
- how will this impact the company's image
- etc
Where as the consumer just has to consider:
- will this save me money
- will my friends be okay or not notice
As for China, the US consumers demand better, cheaper, etc no matter where it is made, how they treat their employees, if the country steals intellectual property, no matter the pollution created, etc... Therefore yes the US Government may need to step in. Just as a parent may stop their kids for wasting money on things that are bad for them...
I have been noting the American Consumer low cost / better addiction issue for a long time, however you just want to blame the providers.
With this in mind...
Why do so few Americans drive American Designed, Tested and Produced vehicles?
Are they slavery supporters who are willing to sacrifice their fellow humans?
By the way, after ~18 years I finally replaced my beloved Suburban with a new 2019 F150 crew cab / mid sized box... Here are the comparative numbers for the options I had.
7.0 Ford Motor Company Ford F 150 3.5 L High Output 56% 1.0 6.0 78.0 US
24.0 General Motors LLC Chevrolet Sierra 64% 1.0 6.0 65.0 CN US US
25.0 Toyota Toyota Sienna 60% 0.0 3.0 64.0 US US
33.0 Nissan North America, Inc Nissan Titan 50% 0.0 3.0 59.0 US US J
34.0 Fiat Chrysler RAM Ram 1500 Ltd Crew Cab 4X4 57% 0.5 3.0 58.5 US M US
"Especially since they are the engines that has made the USA into the world power that it is..."
Can you prove that it's the corporations and not the regulations placed on them that did this?
How does the middle class ever come to be if the corporations are not reigned in?
What influence has Government spending had on that economic engine? e.g. post-war industrialism, the space race
The rich, the only always-winners in Capitalism, are currently robbing the American people and rigging the system in their favor. I wonder how it will end for them.
Moose
By rigging, do you mean by their paying higher tax rates than you?
Funding a huge amount of the governmental expenses?
Funding most of the social programs that people are reliant on?
As usual you seem to be forgetting that a government can only spend what they first received from the tax payers. No wealthy people paying taxes... No space race...
Food for Thought
Here is very much more liberal source
Take it with a grain of salt though.
"To pile together several controversial assumptions, pair them with an uncertain estimate relating to the wealthiest people, compile that into a striking new fact that becomes the centerpiece of a media rollout aimed simultaneously at promoting a popular book and intervening in a presidential primary campaign — all this rubs academic instincts the wrong way and helps explain a fair amount of the scholarly backlash to Saez and Zucman. "
And this is just as biased to the Right
Posting an analysis based solely on income tax is misleading. (Although, it's true that people with income will pay more than people who don't.)
I posted 3 links... One of them should have made you happy. :-)
But I do agree that discussing taxes paid and individual cash / service benefits received gets really complicated...
In summary:
- The wealthy do pay a LOT of Taxes, though they get to shelter wealth increases by not selling the property and by using the step up basis rules during inheritance events.
- The middle class pays a lot of taxes
- The lower income folks pay little in taxes and receive a lot in individual cash / service benefits
Is that about correct?
The reality is the the rich and middle class also get a lot in benefits as well -- generally more on a nominal basis than your typical poor family.
By this you mean that they get to keep more of THEIR money if they conform and do as the government is trying to promote through the tax code?
Meaning they build / buy homes, invest in R&D and exploration, invest in buildings and equipment, give to charity, etc.
Of course we reward the above behavior to stimulate GDP growth, create / maintain jobs, develop new technologies, to care for the unfortunate, to support the arts, etc.
Or do you think they are getting to keep their money for doing nothing?
Where as the expenditures on the poor?
"receive a lot in individual cash / service benefits"...
I understand the benevolent aspects of this, in caring for the disabled, minors and elderly...
But otherwise I would prefer the other folks be required to improve their capabilities as a return on investment. There really should be some benefit to tax payers of investing in them.
"Or do you think they are getting to keep their money for doing nothing?"
In some cases, this is true.
"Mr. Corruption Fighter" is having quite the day today, it seems.
Please tell me where I can get some of this free money from the government...
In particular areas that are not readily available to all citizens...
Please tell me where I can get some of this free money from the government...
Republicans think tax cuts are free money. It's how they justify deficit spending.
--Hiram
People being allowed to keep their money...
Is a bit different than when gov't takes money from Peter and arbitrarily gives it to Paul.
People being allowed to keep their money...
Yes, I hear that a lot. But the things taxes buy also get to be kept too.
--Hiram
Post a Comment