[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2019-September-11, 11:36, said:

I am coming to the opinion that Biden is the best choice for the Democratic party - perhaps Warren or Harris on the ticket but perhaps even that may be too much - but the only consideration at this time that matters is unseating Trump. And that will require winning the middle ground independents who might otherwise choose Trump as a less dangerous choice than a more radically-viewed Democratic candidate.

The problem is that Biden has been slipping into gaffes and confusion with increasing rapidity. Has he lost the plot and become senile? It's increasingly looking like that might be the case. Trump has already been pointing in that direction as appoint of attack. If Biden continues to make a lot of gaffes and slips, it will only add to the perception that he's past it.

With all the embracing of the Green New Deal by Dem hopefuls, they will be fat targets for Trump to beat on.

Yeah, it's smart politics to tell Middle America that they'll have to give up their reasonably good to excellent Health insurance for some "pig in a poke" government run plan. It sounds like shades of Hilary's "I going to get rid of the Coal industry." to me.

I would point out that the climate change solutions in the plan are wishful thinking and not anything practical. Getting rid of the oil and gas industry would mean tremendous disruption to our economy. The proposed solutions aren't without their problems also. As far back as the July 2007, the Audubon Society was decrying the way the wind turbines were killing birds and threatening to endanger them. Since then, a lot more wind turbines have been installed and many more would be in the Green New Deal. Yep, in order to save the polar bears, we'll threaten the extinction of our useful birds. Solar panels do wear out, their disposal will be a huge problem as they contain some of those exotic, toxic rare metals to work.

BTW, the 12 year window to solve the planet's problem isn't a fact, it a prediction and subject to some close scrutiny about its likelihood to be true. Case in point, these same "scientists" have made similar 10-12 year claims of reaching the point of no return in the past that proved to be untrue. I think they even predicted Bangladesh would be underwater by this time. Well, that's not true.

And, it's fair to ask why the US should take the hit to solve the planet's environmental problems when the biggest polluters China and India haven't committed to doing much about green house gases. I believe that the Obama EPA even looked into the case where the US would have zero carbon emissions and found it would hardly affect global warming.

BTW, one of the Biden gaffes really hit the mark. He said "Democrats are more interested in the truth than the facts." That perfectly describes the inhabitants of the progressive bubble. For them, the truth is their belief that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians and was illegally elected President. It doesn't matter the facts don't back that up.

I saw a clip of Condolezza Rice being asked about this on one of Dem propaganda channels, she framed the answer perfectly. She challenged the premise by saying "I don't think the voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Ohio were duped. They voted for the candidate they thought would bring real change."

[johnu]

rmnka447_Troll#2, on 2019-September-11, 23:07, said:

...
Right fringe talking points deleted
....

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2019-September-11, 23:07, said:

The problem is that Biden has been slipping into gaffes and confusion with increasing rapidity. Has he lost the plot and become senile? It's increasingly looking like that might be the case. Trump has already been pointing in that direction as appoint of attack. If Biden continues to make a lot of gaffes and slips, it will only add to the perception that he's past it.

With all the embracing of the Green New Deal by Dem hopefuls, they will be fat targets for Trump to beat on.

Yeah, it's smart politics to tell Middle America that they'll have to give up their reasonably good to excellent Health insurance for some "pig in a poke" government run plan. It sounds like shades of Hilary's "I going to get rid of the Coal industry." to me.

I would point out that the climate change solutions in the plan are wishful thinking and not anything practical. Getting rid of the oil and gas industry would mean tremendous disruption to our economy. The proposed solutions aren't without their problems also. As far back as the July 2007, the Audubon Society was decrying the way the wind turbines were killing birds and threatening to endanger them. Since then, a lot more wind turbines have been installed and many more would be in the Green New Deal. Yep, in order to save the polar bears, we'll threaten the extinction of our useful birds. Solar panels do wear out, their disposal will be a huge problem as they contain some of those exotic, toxic rare metals to work.

BTW, the 12 year window to solve the planet's problem isn't a fact, it a prediction and subject to some close scrutiny about its likelihood to be true. Case in point, these same "scientists" have made similar 10-12 year claims of reaching the point of no return in the past that proved to be untrue. I think they even predicted Bangladesh would be underwater by this time. Well, that's not true.

And, it's fair to ask why the US should take the hit to solve the planet's environmental problems when the biggest polluters China and India haven't committed to doing much about green house gases. I believe that the Obama EPA even looked into the case where the US would have zero carbon emissions and found it would hardly affect global warming.

BTW, one of the Biden gaffes really hit the mark. He said "Democrats are more interested in the truth than the facts." That perfectly describes the inhabitants of the progressive bubble. For them, the truth is their belief that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians and was illegally elected President. It doesn't matter the facts don't back that up.

I saw a clip of Condolezza Rice being asked about this on one of Dem propaganda channels, she framed the answer perfectly. She challenged the premise by saying "I don't think the voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Ohio were duped. They voted for the candidate they thought would bring real change."

Do you have any solutions or are you simply a sycophant of the frothy right?

[y66]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

Quote

When I was a teenager, my mom showed me a statement that she had received in the mail from the Social Security Administration. It included an annual history of her earnings, which showed a big string of zeros covering the years when she was in her late 20s and early 30s. “That’s you and your sister,” she explained, laughing.

My mom is doing just fine these days, but anyone who spends years as a stay-at-home parent — or an unpaid caregiver of any kind — faces a financial penalty when it comes time to retire. Our Social Security system doesn’t recognize parenting as the socially and economically valuable job that it is.

That’s not the system’s only inequity, either. It also punishes teachers, police officers, firefighters and other government employees. Their Social Security benefits are cut if their pension is large enough, unlike private-sector workers, who can keep their full Social Security benefit regardless of the size of their private pension.

Elizabeth Warren has become famous for her plans, and her latest one, out this morning, is meant to address this unfairness. It would let public-sector workers keep their full Social Security benefits and increase benefits for people who spend at least 80 hours a month as unpaid caregivers for young children, the elderly or the disabled.

The biggest part of the plan, however, is an across-the-board increase in monthly Social Security payments. Every current and future beneficiary will receive at least $200 more per month than under the current plan, and many low-income workers will receive at least $600 more.

“A generation of stagnant wages and rising costs for basics like housing, health care, education, and child care have squeezed family budgets,” Warren writes in a Medium post. “Millions of families have had to sacrifice saving for retirement just to make ends meet. At the same time, fewer people have access to the kind of pensions that used to help fund a comfortable retirement.” Her campaign also released an outside analysis, by Moody’s Analytics, which found that the plan would cut the elderly poverty rate by about two-thirds.

She would pay for the plan by increasing the payroll tax on incomes above $250,000, which are now shielded from it. As income inequality has soared in recent decades, Warren notes, the amount of the country’s total income subject to the payroll tax, which finances Social Security, has declined. She would reverse that decline.

I’ve criticized Warren and other Democrats recently for backing a couple of policies that I think are wrongheaded and unpopular (like forcing everyone to enroll in Medicare). The Social Security plan is different. I’ll want to read what others have to say about it in coming days, especially about the size of the increase, but my initial view is that this proposal is the opposite of mandatory Medicare — substantively smart and politically popular.

True, the economy has been kinder to older Americans than younger Americans in recent years (as Warren is well aware). Over all, I’d like to see federal spending become more focused on children and younger workers. But it’s also true that our high-inequality economy hasn’t been easy on most people over the age of 65. Many deserve help.

And as I’m sure you are aware, people over 65 tend to vote at very high rates.

Related: “Americans are pessimistic about the financial health of older Americans,” Kim Parker, Rich Morin and Juliana Menasce Horowitz of the Pew Research Center recently wrote. “Most say that, 30 years from now, those ages 65 and older will be less prepared for retirement than their counterparts today.”

My colleague Paul Krugman has written over the years about both the long-term finances and the politics of Social Security. “America’s overall retirement system is in big trouble,” Paul wrote in 2013. “There’s just one part of that system that’s working well: Social Security. And this suggests that we should make that program stronger, not weaker.”

Substantively smart and politically popular? Yup.

[y66]

Winstonm, on 2019-September-12, 05:57, said:

Do you have any solutions or are you simply a sycophant of the frothy right?

Does Warren have a plan for trolls?

[kenberg]

There are more polls than we know what to do with. Here is one: https://www.npr.org/...n-democrats-tru

For the Dem primary, mostly we look at what the Dems think since they determine who the nominee will be. After that, the candidate must answer to everyone. With that in mind, I have thought of a couple of questions.


For Warren: Student debt is, a problem. Agreed. But: To what extent do you believe that people who borrow more money than they can pay back should accept responsibility for their actions?


For Biden: You have said that you did not oppose busing as it was done in Berkeley, where Kamala Harris went to school. Of course not, that was done voluntarily by the city itself. But in the 1970s you opposed much of the busing that was imposed on school districts by the Department of Education. Do you now believe that your opposition was correct, or do you now believe that your opposition was a mistake?


In the general election such questions, or variants, will be on the minds of voters, the opposition will be sure to make this so. So we might as well get them on the table now. I'm sure we all can think of many other such questions. My idea is to get the candidates to respond to questions that the undecided voter will ask in the general campaign, rather than what Dems will ask in the primary. Dems might think some questions are stupid. Hoping that the questions will not be raised during the general campaign is even stupider. So let's hear their answers.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2019-September-12, 07:24, said:

From David Leonhardt at NYT:


Substantively smart and politically popular? Yup.

It will be interesting to see the reaction.
I would of course accept another $200 a month but ...

There is only so much that can be paid for by taxing the rich so priorities are important. I don't wish to give up part of my income to, say, cover reparations, I don't expect someone else to give up some of their income so I can get another $200 a month.

I would not expect universal, or even particularly broad, applause on this.

As to government employees, they have quite a good retirement plan I think, and they did not pay in to social security during their working years. Those of us who have been paying into social security since we were 14 or so might not look favorable on adding in government employees as recipients.

[Winstonm]

It is vital for us all to know if the McCabe prosecution was a political decision from the executive branch or soley a legal decision of the Justice Department.

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, a frequent target of President Donald Trump's wrath, faces the prospect of an indictment after his attorneys were unable to persuade senior Justice Department officials not to pursue charges that he lied to internal investigators

Justice is supposed to be non-partisan, but that ended with Barr's confirmation. Now, Justice is an extension of Trump's ego because of Barr's arrogance and belief in his own version of the power of the executive under his personal unitary executive theory.

[johnu]

kenberg, on 2019-September-12, 07:28, said:

There are more polls than we know what to do with. Here is one: https://www.npr.org/...n-democrats-tru

For the Dem primary, mostly we look at what the Dems think since they determine who the nominee will be. After that, the candidate must answer to everyone. With that in mind, I have thought of a couple of questions.


For Warren: Student debt is, a problem. Agreed. But: To what extent do you believe that people who borrow more money than they can pay back should accept responsibility for their actions?

A fair question. Maybe a partial solution is to reduce interest rates to a level where most of those in default can pay back their loans.

There was a 60 Minutes piece about a US medical school that announced it was going to be tuition free. Other medical schools had plans for no tuition if the graduating doctors served in areas where there were few doctors, or in certain areas of practice where there is a shortage of doctors. Of course, there are a fairly limited number of students in medical schools around the country so it's not practical for the entire student population.

There are more creative solutions to be tried, and you can be sure Warren would be out in front using the power of the presidency to make them succeed, rather than accepting contributions from the lenders to maintain the status quo.

kenberg, on 2019-September-12, 07:28, said:

For Biden: You have said that you did not oppose busing as it was done in Berkeley, where Kamala Harris went to school. Of course not, that was done voluntarily by the city itself. But in the 1970s you opposed much of the busing that was imposed on school districts by the Department of Education. Do you now believe that your opposition was correct, or do you now believe that your opposition was a mistake?

Another fair question. IIRC, Biden is currently in favor of busing. You might ask the question of the Racist in Chief whether he is in favor of busing in 2019. Actually, no need for that since he is opposed to busing because it mixes the races together.

[johnu]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Explains How Donald Trump’s Racism Works ‘As Cover For The Con’

Quote

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) explained why she believes “virtually every policy” that President Donald Trump pursues is actually a ruse to “personally enrich himself & his friends” ― and how racism works “as the cover for the con” because “corruption isn’t popular policy.”

“It’s always about the con,” she wrote Tuesday on Twitter in a thread that’s now going viral.

The Grifter and Con Man in Chief is all about the con game, even if it is for literally a couple of dollars, or nothing more than making himself look good. He is all about the con.

[johnu]

Speaking of cons by the Grifter in Chief,

Trump Revives Dodgy Claim He And His ‘Men’ Helped At Ground Zero On 9/11

Quote

A retired New York deputy fire chief, Richard Alles, who spent months working at the Ground Zero site, told the New York Times in July that as far as he was aware, Trump did not have a presence there in the aftermath of the attacks.

“I never witnessed him ... He was a private citizen at the time. I don’t know what kind of role he could have possibly played,” Alles said.

Fact-checking website Snopes last year reviewed Trump’s claim the he had paid people to assist with the recovery, and was unable to prove it.

Sound like the claim the future Liar in Chief made claiming he knew dozens of 9/11 victims. After being fact checked, he never made that claim again. There is no record of him attending a single funeral of a 9/11 victim. Why would he, he didn't know a single one of them. Or his ridiculous claim that he personally saw thousands of NJ Muslims on rooftops celebrating the collapse of the twin towers. Or that the future Dementia in Chief personally saw many people jump from the towers when he wasn't anywhere near the towers.

[johnu]

One less vote for the Racist in Chief.

Trump Called Him ‘My African American,’ But Now He’s Ditching GOP To Run For Congress

Quote

Three years ago, in an attempt to prove he wasn’t racist, Donald Trump infamously pointed to a man in the audience of his presidential campaign rally and declared him “my African American.”

Now, more than 2 1/2 years into Trump’s presidency, that man, Gregory Cheadle is abandoning the Republican Party to run for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2020.

Cheadle, 62, announced his decision to run as an independent in an interview with “PBS NewsHour” published Thursday. After 18 years in the party, he told the news program, he believes Republicans are using Black men like him as “political pawns” in their “pro-white” agenda.

“President Trump is a rich guy who is mired in white privilege to the extreme,” Cheadle told PBS on Thursday. “Republicans are too sheepish to call him out on anything and they are afraid of losing their positions and losing any power themselves.”

[y66]

Quote

Honestly all these other campaigns should be a little embarrassed about losing to Joe Biden, but that’s where we are. -- Matt Yglesias at Vox

[kenberg]

Quote

Honestly all these other campaigns should be a little embarrassed about losing to Joe Biden, but that's where we are. -- Matt Yglesias at Vox

I think that this hits the nail on the head. I think Biden is a good guy, I expect I would like him if we were neighbors, I don't think he will be a strong candidate in the general election. He's not John Kennedy or even Adlai Stevenson, and Stevenson lost twice.

Anyone should be able to beat Trump? Anyone should have been able to beat Trump three years ago.

[y66]

From David Leonhardt:

Quote

Carlos Lozada of The Washington Post writes: “My wife is asking me why journalists are always the ones who get to ask questions at the debates. Why not the professors at the college? Or why not historians who have studied the presidency? It’s not like journalists know more than anyone else. ‘No offense,’ she adds.”

Why not water cooler posters on BBO?

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2019-September-13, 06:31, said:

[/color]

I think that this hits the nail on the head. I think Biden is a good guy, I expect I would like him if we were neighbors, I don't think he will be a strong candidate in the general election. He's not John Kennedy or even Adlai Stevenson, and Stevenson lost twice.

Anyone should be able to beat Trump? Anyone should have been able to beat Trump three years ago.

The person who to me came across as the most stable personality in last night's debate forum was Peter Buttigieg.

[barmar]

I'm getting sick of the posts that contain practically nothing but calling each other names, I just deleted the recent exchange between Chas_p and johnu. They serve no useful purpose to the forum.

I tend to ignore one-offs, but this back-and-forth just ticked me off.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2019-September-13, 09:49, said:

I'm getting sick of the posts that contain practically nothing but calling each other names, I just deleted the recent exchange between Chas_p and johnu. They serve no useful purpose to the forum.

I tend to ignore one-offs, but this back-and-forth just ticked me off.

That will show them Barry!

Because, of course, people spend all sorts of time reading old threads....
Any having this content deleted will surely weigh heavy on their minds...

Nothing like good, random / arbitrary moderation to make the forums a better place.

[y66]

Matt Yglesias posted the story below by David Leonhardt from March 2018 to support his assertion that race-specific messages are not effective for motivating marginally engaged black and Latino voters:

Quote

In Alabama’s recent special Senate election, the progressive group Priorities USA was looking for ways to lift African-American voter turnout. So Priorities tested several different advertisements, to see which ones made people want to vote.

There was no shortage of potential ad material in Alabama. Roy Moore, the Republican nominee, had a trail of bigoted statements and alleged sexual molestation. Doug Jones, the Democrat, had prosecuted Ku Klux Klansmen for murder. Priorities tested each of these themes and others, too: Moore’s ties to white supremacists; Moore’s closeness to President Trump; Jones’s endorsements from civil-rights leaders.

Yet none of these tested as well as a 15-second ad that never mentioned Moore.

“My kids are going to do more than just survive the bigotry and hatred,” a female narrator says, as the video shows a Klan march and then a student at a desk. “They’re going to get an education, start a business, earn a good living, make me proud. Education is my priority. That’s why I’m voting for Doug Jones.”

The test results surprised the leaders of Priorities, and no wonder: We’re supposed to be living in a time of education skepticism. The media regularly run stories suggesting education is overrated. K-12 schools are said to be in a never-ending crisis, and college debt has become a new crisis. A much-discussed Pew Research Center poll recently found a jump in the number of people saying colleges had a negative effect on the country.

In truth, though, Americans’ attitudes toward education are much simpler than all of this noise suggests — just as that Alabama ad test found. Whatever complaints people may have about their local school or college costs, most have no doubt that their children need a good education. People see it as the most reliable path to a good life, and they are right.

The unemployment rate for college graduates is a mere 2.3 percent. College graduates earn vastly more than non-graduates. Educational gaps in life expectancy and health status are growing too.

When you start to dig into the education skepticism, you find that much of it collapses. Those journalists and academics publicly questioning the value of education? Many are desperately trying to get their own children into strong school systems and colleges. Their skepticism apparently applies only to other people’s kids.

And that Pew poll? It was legitimate but misunderstood. The rise in negative feelings toward colleges came largely among Republicans, many of whom see campuses as bastions of liberalism. Yet those Republicans still want their children to attend college. They understand that the benefits of education outweigh any risks of lefty brainwashing.

Last week, I asked the research group Morning Consult to conduct a poll on education. The main question gave parents a list of schooling levels — high school, community college, four-year college — and asked which they wanted their own children to attain. The results were overwhelming: 74 percent chose four-year college, and another 9 percent chose community college. The progressive think tank Demos recently commissioned its own poll that found strikingly similar support for increased higher-education funding.

The popularity of education offers a giant opportunity to politicians. It’s a chance to talk about something other than Trump — and be heard. Many voters, understandably, care more about their lives and their children’s future than about Stormy Daniels or Jared Kushner.

Conor Lamb, the Pennsylvania Democrat, just won in a heavily Republican district by focusing relentlessly on his constituents, not Trump. Education was one of his themes. He told voters he was bothered that his brother and sister — both teachers — didn’t receive the gratitude that he did for being a Marine.

Given the passions of the Trump era, this isn’t the moment to settle for the modest, technocratic education proposals that Democrats often favor. It’s a time for big, ambitious ideas.

In education, that means universal preschool, which would address both inequality and child-care needs, and universal tuition-free community college. A century ago, the United States led the world toward universal high school, and today’s economy demands more than a high-school diploma. Community colleges are part of the answer, and are also a common pathway to four-year degrees. Importantly, free tuition there isn’t a huge subsidy for the upper middle class and the affluent, who typically start at four-year colleges.

I was glad to see New Jersey’s new Democratic governor, Phil Murphy, propose free community college and expanded pre-K for his state last week. And these ideas don’t need to be partisan. Tennessee’s Republican governor, Bill Haslam, has made his state’s community colleges tuition-free, while Georgia and Oklahoma have been pre-K leaders.

Sometimes, good policy and good politics align quite nicely. The single best bet that a society or an individual can make — education — also turns out to be the rare idea that transcends today’s partisan divide.

[johnu]

U.S. appeals court says Trump cannot dodge foreign corruption lawsuit

Quote

A U.S. federal appeals court on Friday revived a lawsuit alleging President Donald Trump violated the U.S. Constitution by profiting from foreign and domestic officials who patronized his hotels and restaurants, moving a watchdog group closer to obtaining financial records from his real estate company.

In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals set aside a lower court ruling that had thrown out the case because the people who sued could not prove they were harmed by Trump's actions and his role as president.

Quote

Deepak Gupta, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the ruling puts them on track to subpoena financial records from Trump's business through the so-called "discovery" process.

I'll wait for legal experts to weigh in on whether this lawsuit has a better chance of getting the Grifter in Chief's financial records in a timely manner than the House's impeachment investigation.