Elizabeth Warren announces bid for Presidency

[Voltron]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-2020-president-announcement.html

Senator Elizabeth Warren, a critic of big banks and proponent for financial regulation, has formed an exploratory committee to seek the office of President of the United States in 2020.

__________________________________________________ __________

This is pretty big news, considering.

I wonder if being so early will cost her, as it gives political rivals a longer time to mount smear campaigns.

Also, I'd like to get ahead of the crowd by making this clear:

If you have an opinion to offer, keep it civil and grounded. Baseless claims and attacks will not be tolerated if made.

[Andrew NDB]

Well, that would be really good news for Trump if she ran. Especially if she scored the democratic nomination.

[Roseangelo]

Well, that would be really good news for Trump if she ran. Especially if she scored the democratic nomination.

Yeah, no way she can win.

Thing is, whoever runs on the Democratic ticket is going to have to have a platform other than "Trump Sucks" to have any chance. And there is pretty much no chance of that happening. So...

[Andrew NDB]

Thing is, whoever runs on the Democratic ticket is going to have to have a platform other than "Trump Sucks" to have any chance.

Very true. They don't have any policies to speak of on the table, let alone ones that are votable. And it's not even really "Trump sucks," it's just this kind of united, "We hate Trump! Don't you hate Trump, too?" Cue the high-fiving and exchange of "... and this is why we hate Trump!"/"He said something bad again!"/"*mumble*Russia!*mumble*"/"More investigation!" sort of stuff. Devoid of, again, anything about policies, whether positive or negative. They're just sailing on "the feels" right now, riding the hate/outrage train.

I mean, I'd love to vote democrat again.

[Sumac]

Very true. They don't have any policies to speak of on the table, let alone ones that are votable. And it's not even really "Trump sucks," it's just this kind of united, "We hate Trump! Don't you hate Trump, too?" Cue the high-fiving and exchange of "... and this is why we hate Trump!"/"He said something bad again!"/"*mumble*Russia!*mumble*"/"More investigation!" sort of stuff. Devoid of, again, anything about policies, whether positive or negative. They're just sailing on "the feels" right now, riding the hate/outrage train.

I mean, I'd love to vote democrat again.
Wasn't it Hilarity main gimmick during her run: "Vote for me, because, I am not Trump!"?

Didn't work that much for her.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I figured it'd be Warren or Joe Biden.

I'm not the first one to say it, but I doubt she can beat Trump. Doesn't mean I won't vote for her, but it'd be nice if the Libertarians could mount a more imposing figure than Gary Johnson this time around. :tlol:

[Andrew NDB]

Wasn't this the one claiming to be super Native American, was made fun of for it, took a test and it turned out no, didn't have any significant Native American heritage? Like, recently (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/16/elizabeth-warren-angers-prominent-native-americans-with-politically-fraught-dna-test/?utm_term=.da6feeb13e3a)?

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Wasn't this the one claiming to be super Native American, was made fun of for it, took a test and it turned out no, didn't have any significant Native American heritage? Like, recently (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/16/elizabeth-warren-angers-prominent-native-americans-with-politically-fraught-dna-test/?utm_term=.da6feeb13e3a)?

Yup. :tlol: There was a far easier way out of that PR mess for her; just say "Huh, my parents and grandparents always told me I was part-Cherokee (or whatever)... turns out they were wrong. Well, that's embarrassing!" and move on.

But then, I guess she has made a history of using that affiliation to her gain in policy and speeches and what-not...

[Prowler]

You know, despite so many hating him or considering him a joke, Trump is proving to be a tough opponent to defeat.

In order to defeat Trump you'd need a ver charismatic candidate wit ha strong personality. Perhaps a blue version of him, even.

Well, things can change until 2020, so who knows. But, as it stands now, I don't see Trump not being re-elected. And tbh, despite his tantrums, dumb sayings and such, it's not like his presidency is being the "end of the world" as some predicted, thus far. No WW3 or Day of Reckoning yet. So perhaps he might conquer some neutrals until then. "hmm, that Donald guy ain't so bad after all..."

[Andrew NDB]

In order to defeat Trump you'd need a ver charismatic candidate wit ha strong personality. Perhaps a blue version of him, even.

Yeah, this. Someone like the Rock, but with actual political experience. That could probably move the meter.

Democrats seem to be looking at Beto O'Rouke as some kind of second coming of Ted Kennedy. I don't see it. Plus he's pretty annoying to listen to.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

You know, despite so many hating him or considering him a joke, Trump is proving to be a tough opponent to defeat.

In order to defeat Trump you'd need a ver charismatic candidate wit ha strong personality. Perhaps a blue version of him, even.

Well, things can change until 2020, so who knows. But, as it stands now, I don't see Trump not being re-elected. And tbh, despite his tantrums, dumb sayings and such, it's not like his presidency is being the "end of the world" as some predicted, thus far. No WW3 or Day of Reckoning yet. So perhaps he might conquer some neutrals until then. "hmm, that Donald guy ain't so bad after all..."

Last President to not be elected for a second term was George H.W. Bush, and that's only because of the "no new taxes" pratfall.

Hopefully, Democratic contenders with a real chance of beating Trump-Republicans are waiting for 2024.

Yeah, this. Someone like the Rock, but with actual political experience. That could probably move the meter.

Democrats seem to be looking at Beto O'Rouke as some kind of second coming of Ted Kennedy. I don't see it. Plus he's pretty annoying to listen to.

If Beto couldn't beat Ted Cruz of all people, he doesn't have a chance at Trump.

Oprah could easily win, but I doubt she'd actually run.

Michael Bloomberg could be the Democratic Trump.

Bernie and Biden would get a lot of support, but I'm pretty sure they'd lose in the end.

Hopefully Hillary is smart enough not to run again. She didn't beat Trump in 2016, she won't beat him in 2020.

Kamala Harris, maybe. But I'd throw my money behind Tulsi Gabbard if she ever runs.

[Prowler]

Yeah, this. Someone like the Rock, but with actual political experience. That could probably move the meter.

Democrats seem to be looking at Beto O'Rouke as some kind of second coming of Ted Kennedy. I don't see it. Plus he's pretty annoying to listen to.

LMAO I actually thought of that more or less. i was gonna say The Rock, but he has zero political experience(well so did Trump, to be fair) and I dunno if people would trust him to lead a country. At least Trump has the whole business tycoon thing going for him.

Well, I'd say Obama was someone like The Rock with political experience :lol:. But I don't think he can run again. And if he can he won't, anyway.

[Sumac]

In order to defeat Trump you'd need a ver charismatic candidate wit ha strong personality. Perhaps a blue version of him, even.
Wasn't Bernie Sanders supposed to be "blue version" of Trump?

[Prowler]

Last President to not be elected for a second term was George H.W. Bush, and that's only because of the "no new taxes" pratfall.

Hopefully, Democratic contenders with a real chance of beating Trump-Republicans are waiting for 2024.



If Beto couldn't beat Ted Cruz of all people, he doesn't have a chance at Trump.

Oprah could easily win, but I doubt she'd actually run.

Michael Bloomberg could be the Democratic Trump.

Bernie and Biden would get a lot of support, but I'm pretty sure they'd lose in the end.

Hopefully Hillary is smart enough not to run again. She didn't beat Trump in 2016, she won't beat him in 2020.

Kamala Harris, maybe. But I'd throw my money behind Tulsi Gabbard if she ever runs.
They need someone who can beat trump in a debate. Not someone who lets him walk all over them. For example, like that time Obama made Trump look like a fool when Trump asked him to show his birth certificate. They need someone like that if they want to beat Trump.

Doesn't matter if a candidate has great ideas or if he/she is very intelligent if they end up having zero personality or gonads.

[Andrew NDB]

Oprah could easily win, but I doubt she'd actually run.

You really think so?

[Prowler]

Wasn't Bernie Sanders supposed to be "blue version" of Trump?

I guess? Is he running again? I remember opinion polls back then asking about the possible scenarios, and Sanders apparently would beat Trump easily... but then again Hilary was supposed to beat Trump and we all know what happened.

[Andrew NDB]

I guess? Is he running again? I remember opinion polls back then asking about the possible scenarios, and Sanders apparently would beat Trump easily... but then again Hilary was supposed to beat Trump and we all know what happened.

I think it wouldn't have even been close if it had come down to Trump vs. Sanders. 51% of voters won't vote for straight-up socialism.

[Redeemer]

Last President to not be elected for a second term was George H.W. Bush, and that's only because of the "no new taxes" pratfall.

Hopefully, Democratic contenders with a real chance of beating Trump-Republicans are waiting for 2024.



If Beto couldn't beat Ted Cruz of all people, he doesn't have a chance at Trump.

Oprah could easily win, but I doubt she'd actually run.

Michael Bloomberg could be the Democratic Trump.

Bernie and Biden would get a lot of support, but I'm pretty sure they'd lose in the end.

Hopefully Hillary is smart enough not to run again. She didn't beat Trump in 2016, she won't beat him in 2020.

Kamala Harris, maybe. But I'd throw my money behind Tulsi Gabbard if she ever runs.

I think Ross Petrol splitting off and running as a 3rd party independent had something to do with it too :lol: If Ross Petrol had not split off from the republican party I think Bush would have won the election. I am wondering if this will happen in 2020 election again with Republicans. The republican party has many members who despise Trump and refuse to support him.

Wasn't Bernie Sanders supposed to be "blue version" of Trump?

Bernie has actual experience in politics and has been a senator for years. If the Democrats(The party, not voters) would not have been so freaking stupid to hand hand the nomination to Hillary I think Bernie would have beat Trump. But the Democrats refused to open up the race until it was too late.

I really wish Bernie would have won this last election. I think he would have been a great president. He is not extremely divisive or polarizing, he is a democratic senator for a gun-pro state and had really good common sense ideas/platform.(Invest in education and infrastructure.)

I hope a good candidate emerges from the democratic party to take down trump. I wish Bernie would run, but I fear people will not vote for him bc of his age. :ohwell:

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

You really think so?

I'm gonna assume Oprah could rally 50%-75% of the female vote, which SHOULD be 50% of the votes in general (but probably isn't). I freely admit this is EXTREMELY lazy guesswork on my end, but what the heck. :tsmile:

[Autbot_Benz]

Bernie has actual experience in politics and has been a senator for years. If the Democrats(The party, not voters) would not have been so freaking stupid to hand hand the nomination to Hillary I think Bernie would have beat Trump. But the Democrats refused to open up the race until it was too late.

I really wish Bernie would have won this last election. I think he would have been a great president. He is not extremely divisive or polarizing, he is a democratic senator for a gun-pro state and had really good common sense ideas/platform.(Invest in education and infrastructure.)

I hope a good candidate emerges from the democratic party to take down trump. I wish Bernie would run, but I fear people will not vote for him bc of his age. :ohwell:

Agree with the bolded but what do you expect from Crooked Hillary and the Dems pulling that shady **** to make Hillary the Nominee. I also think Bernie would have won over Trump too.

[Andrew NDB]

I also think Bernie would have won over Trump too.

No way. Zero chance.

[Vegita-San]

I guess? Is he running again? I remember opinion polls back then asking about the possible scenarios, and Sanders apparently would beat Trump easily... but then again Hilary was supposed to beat Trump and we all know what happened.

Bernie would have had a far better chance than hillary.

They tried the 'like trump' option with hillary.
Hillary was rather unlikeable. and too much like trump in her approach/public appeal. at least trump could smile a little and pretend to be likeable to his base. hillary didn't even come out to thank hers when she lost.
I personally think they had a better shot with Bernie.

This was the first time around I actually paid attention to what was going on. if only because all this SJW crap infested my movies and you basically had to get into politics in order to even begin to have an opinion on things, or else have what you said mis understood, or mis stated by the crazies out there.

I thought Obama might be the change that was needed, but he proved to be just as bad as everyone else.

As far as Trump goes... it's really REALLY sad that people where so hysterical over it, folks had to come on the next day after the election and say 'Everything will be OK'...... I actually saw that on my FB feed. Yet, here we are 3 years later, and still pretty much status quo.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

No way. Zero chance.

More chance than Hillary, but that is NOT saying much. :tlol:

[Andrew NDB]

More chance than Hillary, but that is NOT saying much. :tlol:

I don't see it. Bernie's whole ideology is simply not consistent with even half of the democrats' out there. Literally the only thing that would give him any sort of an edge over Hillary would be that he's not a woman.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I don't see it. Bernie's whole ideology is simply not consistent with even half of the democrats' out there. Literally the only thing that would give him any sort of an edge over Hillary would be that he's not a woman.

Not true. Hillary had 8 years of baggage from Bill's presidential terms, plus her time in the Obama administration.

That's a LOT of fodder for dislike and hate. Bernie, comparatively speaking, has far less animosity directed towards him.

People vote AGAINST candidates as often, if not more, as they vote FOR candidates.

[Redeemer]

Agree with the bolded but what do you expect from Crooked Hillary and the Dems pulling that shady **** to make Hillary the Nominee. I also think Bernie would have won over Trump too.

I don't know.... Maybe some transparency........ They are accusing Trump of cheating and Russia of manipulating the process, but they did the exact same thing!!!!! They both manipulated the democratic process.

No way. Zero chance.

That is an ignorant statement. Bernie was winning independent voters over. He had a very good chance of winning especially coming from a pro-gun state demonstrating his ability to appeal to the other party and gun owners. IMO he would have beat Trump. Hillary won the popular vote, but loss the electoral. Bernie probably would have won.

More chance than Hillary, but that is NOT saying much. :tlol:

Hillary all most won. She won the popular vote and many of the swing states were very close to going blue. I think people forget how close that race was.

[Andrew NDB]

Not true. Hillary had 8 years of baggage from Bill's presidential terms, plus her time in the Obama administration.

That's a LOT of fodder for dislike and hate. Bernie, comparatively speaking, has far less animosity directed towards him.

People vote AGAINST candidates as often, if not more, as they vote FOR candidates.

Maybe so, but I'd wager if Bernie had been on the ballot it would just translate into less Democrats even bothering to vote at all. Like him more or less than Hillary, there just isn't that many people into socialism beyond an outspoken minority.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Maybe so, but I'd wager if Bernie had been on the ballot it would just translate into less Democrats even bothering to vote at all. Like him more or less than Hillary, there just isn't that many people into socialism beyond an outspoken minority.

I feel like there are a LOT of dumb college kids who buy into Bernie, but that might just because of my personal locale.

[Roseangelo]

I feel like there are a LOT of dumb college kids who buy into Bernie, but that might just because of my personal locale.

You're definitely right. Mostly because they haven't actually had to earn their own money yet and just being handed the things you need sounds like a better option than working.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

You're definitely right. Mostly because they haven't actually had to earn their own money yet and just being handed the things you need sounds like a better option than working.

Oh come on... Free college for everyone is a wonderful idea! Don't bother asking where the money comes from, or how many of those students make good on their educations to become successfully employed and tax-paying citizens.

Feel the burn! :trazz:

[Barkworm]

In no other civilized country, politicians like Bernie Sanders would be considered "straight-up" socialist. He is a moderate left-winger, nothing more.

[Andrew NDB]

In no other civilized country, politicians like Bernie Sanders would be considered "straight-up" socialist. He is a moderate left-winger, nothing more.

Are these countries other than the ones where you can (and will) go to prison for posting something funny on Twitter?

[Voltron]

Are these countries other than the ones where you can (and will) go to prison for posting something funny on Twitter?

No, he's right. Most other Western countries have a mix of socialist and capitalist elements to their government and economy.

The US isn't all that different. Anything we have that's funded by tax dollars is a social program. Roads, schools, libraries, and even the police and military are all social programs.

The difference being that other countries tend to invest more of their tax revenue back into the middle class. America is far behind on public transport and healthcare, for example.

I think one of the biggest issues we face in America is a giant false dichotomy fallacy. We're under the impression that we can have one or the other, but not both.

For example, I currently live and work abroad. In this country, I can get healthcare from the government, through my work, or through a separate insurance company. I can also refuse it all together.

One thing that made the ACA so unpopular was the mandatory nature of it. This "you have to have insurance" edict was not going to fly in a country like America, where we have a tendency to disobey orders for the hell of it.

But that doesn't mean we can't have some kind of comprehensive system that suits everyone.

To bring this back on topic, Warren's policies aren't so much left-wing wet dreams as much as they are solid suggestions for fixing the real problem of monopolies in America.

Currently, most people have two or three options for cable/internet service. Our healthcare is exorbitant. Wages are stagnant. Competition is stymied by larger corporations. The common man is pretty put out. I think everyone in the middle class, regardless of political affiliation.

Trump had some good suggestions, too. I liked his plan about increasing competition in the healthcare industry. It has yet to materialize, but it was at least a suggestion for a problem we're all suffering from.

In the end, I agree with everyone else here: Warren's chances are pretty low. I think Biden might be the way to go on this one. Trump's strength is running the election like a WWE main event. Warren's going to bring droning policy to what's essentially a rap battle. Unless she's about to 8 Mile this ****, I don't think it's going to happen.

[Andrew NDB]

How she intends to regain the spotlight:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-nevada.html

[FredWolfLeonardo]

How she intends to regain the spotlight:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-nevada.html

“We can’t count on the media to cover our campaign fairly, so we’re taking our case directly to voters.”

LOL what?

This is coming from a person who is backed by CNN, who will do everything in their power to make sure Bernie doesn't win the primaries.

[IMJ]

“We can’t count on the media to cover our campaign fairly, so we’re taking our case directly to voters.”

LOL what?

This is coming from a person who is backed by CNN, who will do everything in their power to make sure Bernie doesn't win the primaries.

Both that woman and Hilary Clinton are the archetypes of what you don't want in the White House as far as female candidates go. They are both at different positions on the same spectrum, but they are exactly the female boss you don't want to have, they both project personality that you absolutely do not want in leadership.

Meanwhile, the Dems have Tulsi sitting on the sidelines, and while she's not a perfect candidate either, I would at least trust her to lead the country in it's best interests and I'd give her serious voting consideration. I just disagree with her positioning and her framework regarding what kind of Federalist system we live in. But that's it.

Clinton? Corrupt, manipulating POS. Warren? Softly enunciating overcompensater who plays the "woman" card rather than having any real skills. Tulsi? Completely valid, respectful person with the look of a leader and a skilled speaker and clear thinker who just happens to have a systems-ideology that I don't agree with.

And I'm barely right of center.

[The Deadman]

She's right, they can't count on the media to cover campaigns fairly because they're actively trying to knock Bernie Sanders all the way down because he's not the candidate the media wants.

[Andrew NDB]

She's right, they can't count on the media to cover campaigns fairly because they're actively trying to knock Bernie Sanders all the way down because he's not the candidate the media wants.

Well, he's not a candidate that's electable. If way less than 50% of Americans want socialism, how is more than 50% going to vote him in? By him explaining the virtues of "democratic" socialism over and over again?

[The Deadman]

Well, he's not a candidate that's electable. If way less than 50% of Americans want socialism, how is more than 50% going to vote him in? By him explaining the virtues of "democratic" socialism over and over again?

When you have someone's grandfather talking about how we're getting all of this stuff for free without having to work for it, why wouldnt that be electable?

[Andrew NDB]

When you have someone's grandfather talking about how we're getting all of this stuff for free without having to work for it, why wouldnt that be electable?

Because most of the country wants aboslutely nothing to do with socialism.

[Voltron]

America loves socialism, so long as we don't know it's socialism.

Socialism isn't inherently bad. There's just some things it does better than a free market can. And vice versa.

Our military is socialist. It's a government run entity that we pay in to. All the benefits that veterans receive? Social cash. All the weapons they're armed with? Bought with our tax dollars.

Public schools and libraries.

Roads and highways.

Police and fire services.

Parks.

These are all things that exist because of social programs.

Don't say that people don't want socialism. People LOVE socialism, so long as they aren't aware of what it is.

For example: Social Security has "social" right in the name. Our tax dollars go to pay for retirees' social security benefits. It's the go-to definition for socialist programs in the US.

If people TRULY hated socialism, they'd have no problem ending social security, giving up that money and letting it go back to where it came from. Right now, there's a minor scandal going on with Trump's proposed budget to slash social benefits. Even his most ardent supporters get a little jittery when their socialism is threatened.

Speaking of Obamacare:

I found an article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/one-third-dont-know-obamacare-and-affordable-care-act-are-the-same.html) from the failing New York Times describing the confusion over ACA and Obamacare, and how people had no idea what was going on with it, or that they were even the same thing.

This article (https://news.gallup.com/poll/268943/americans-remain-divided-obamacare.aspx) from Gallup indicates that, as recently as December, more than 50% of Americans approve of Obamacare.

[IMJ]

America loves socialism, so long as we don't know it's socialism.

People LOVE socialism, so long as they aren't aware of what it is.

Regarding your wisdom here, I can only say that as a melting pot society there are public works programs that of course simply make sense - streets, parks, etc. This is not born on the foolishness of the population who goes about their lives in ignorance. Instead this is a modified structure of civilization with social benefit without losing focus on individual rights.

That is to say that the components you are describing benefit people as communal efforts without widely infringing on opportunity or ingenuity and the reward systems for it (e.g. "freedoms").

And so, I'm not entirely sure what your point was beyond pointing out, apparently, that your belief is that people are sheep and this is illustrate by Americas road, parks and sewer systems. But if you were relying on a roads, programs and parks argument for socialism, that argument isn't valid (sorry Voltron, but I can't resist because of your general demeanor I'm compelled to say, aren't you supposed to be teacher?).

If you were making an argument for socialism (because if you weren't then the whole context of your post was simply to call people ignorant), then an academic in political science would point out the true shape of the debate is not what you've presented - instead the actual argument is shaped as "socialism" and "capitalism" are entities of production. And in that context "socialism" infringes on personal rights and choice by virtue of government distribution systems whereas in Capitalism enhances personal rights and choice through resource driven decision making.

Basically your statement was a little formless so it was harder to address - it was either "society is dumb and we hide from socialism" or it was an argument for socialism, but in either case you have an opportunity through the information above for discussion and to reconsider whatever your point was. I could tackle the obamacare thing, but there's no point beyond saying that the primary issue with it is the infringing mandate. All of the other issues could be hammered out through legislation, but the initiative infringes.

[Leo656]

Both that woman and Hilary Clinton are the archetypes of what you don't want in the White House as far as female candidates go. They are both at different positions on the same spectrum, but they are exactly the female boss you don't want to have, they both project personality that you absolutely do not want in leadership.


I strongly feel that women in general are simply not fit to lead.

There are many reasons for this, including but not limited to the fact that most of my family are women (at least 80%) and the fact that I have, regrettably, had a female boss a time or two. Too emotional, too petty, too prone to holding grudges, too quick to anger over frivolous nonsense, too quick to overcompensate because they have something to prove. And on and on and on. And before anyone plays the "Men aren't immune to that stuff", you're right, but add in periods and estrogen and the whole thing just gets exponentially worse. The whole "something to prove" thing by itself makes them insufferable when put in any position of power or authority; ever deal with a female cop? The worst. They jump right to shouting, insulting and "bully behavior" in even the most casual of circumstances, because they have "something to prove". These kinds of people shouldn't be running things.

If given the choice I would never even have a female supervisor again for as long as I live; by far, worst bosses I ever had in any field I've worked in. So it just stands to reason that I'd never approve one to be President.

I understand why this would be a controversial opinion, but guess what? It ain't changin'. So anyone who'd wanna try and "enlighten" me on it can save the quarter. I'm not saying take away their right to vote or anything, I'm just saying, historically, they don't do well in positions of authority, and a lot of the reasons why are directly related to the fact that they're women and nothing else.

Like, a dude in the Oval Office won't jump right to putting in the launch codes just because someone called them an "uppity c*nt" on social media, but at least half of the women just might. Not a risk worth taking, in my opinion.
----------------

My views on the "socialism" bit are well-established. Public works and retirement benefits, fine. Our money SHOULD go into things like that. Coddling people who "just don't want to work but still deserve the same standard of life as people who bust their ass", or making my tax money go to the lung surgery of a 40-year-long smoker, or the gastric bypass surgery for someone who "happens to be 400 lbs and has NO other options towards improving their life", well no, absolutely not, now that's just being silly. Some sort of selective standards need to be applied or the whole thing would fall apart incredibly fast. That's just common sense.

[Voltron]

So 100% of women, the world over, are incapable of leadership? Ever? Not a single one out of the 3.5 billion?

As to your remark on socialism: do you believe people who are productive members of society but are unable to pay expensive medical bills should be left to die?

[FredWolfLeonardo]

As to your remark on socialism: do you believe people who are productive members of society but are unable to pay expensive medical bills should be left to die?

In Leo656's defense, he did mention public works which includes hospitals, and made a clear distinction between those in need and those who willingly bring destruction on themselves.

[Leo656]

There's always a 1% margin of error. So maybe... 5 or 6 women, maybe? Problem is, those who would seek power are always unfit to wield it, and you have to "seek power" to even get invited to the dance in the first place. So any woman who would in theory be a good leader wouldn't even be given the chance anyway.
-------------------

And I believe that "productive" is the key word. People who work and pay into the system should be given more priority than people who contribute nothing. The problem isn't as to whether a system should even exist for people in need; of course there should be. The problem is, everyone is "in need" once you start opening things up so that anyone can qualify.

Again, we all have a Tragic Heartbreak story to illustrate how f*cked up things are vs. What They Should Be. My Dad worked at a good job for 30 years, paid his taxes, and when he almost died from a massive heart attack, the system that was supposed to ensure his care and survival put him at the back of the line. He was told to not work anymore or he could die, but it took almost five years for him to actually start getting any kind of disability stipend, and we had rent and bills to pay, so there he was, 50-something and half-dead, working in a 100-degree pizza kitchen for absolute sh*t money 7 days a week, because at least we got "free" dinners out of it (and after those "free" dinners his take-home was about $20-40 a week). If he hadn't gotten "lucky" and been awarded a large accident settlement from an unrelated matter, we would have had nothing at all instead of "Almost nothing". We basically lived on that while he waited for his disability to kick in, and he STILL had to work odd jobs under-the-table just to make ends meet. And THEN he had to pay every cent of that accident lawsuit money BACK to the government because of some nonsense, so his actual monthly stipend once he did get his disability was a lot less than what it should have been. He was basically "paying them back" until the day he died, and he never had enough money to get by. If I hadn't lived with him for most of my 20s and paid most of his bills for him, he wouldn't have lived half as long.

Anyways. It doesn't get much more "in need" than having your heart taken out of your body, drained, and then put back in while you're hooked up to machines. He apparently "died" twice on the operating table. Maaaaaaaaaybe he shouldn't have had to wait four or five f*cking years after that ordeal to start getting his disability money? Maaaaaaybe he shouldn't have had to work 7 days a week at those sh*tty cash jobs in the meanwhile? Maaaaaaaybe all of that stuff took a few years off his life (he died at 65 in 2010)?

Also, maaaaaaaaaybe he should have been taken care of FIRST, before that 40-year smoker or the overweight person? Granted, his own medical issues were ALSO lifestyle-based in part (although they were also partly genetic), but I'm saying, if we're talking about "in need", well, it doesn't get much more "in need" than "died twice on the table, can't work again for fear of death". But nope, back of the line.

I'd be less bitter about it if I hadn't seen so many people "jump ahead" in line and get approved for assistance for what were often nebulous reasons. "I need food stamps because I have six kids and no Daddy." Well bitch, it sounds like you generally make bad decisions and I'm not inclined to care. "I don't want to eat right and exercise, I need gastic bypass or lipo, and the government needs to pay for it." Statistically, every one of these people are advised by a doctor to try the Diet and Exercise thing BEFORE they're approved for the surgery; NONE of them do, but they all get the surgery anyway because "Eh, f*ck it." And they want ME to pay for it? What are the odds that if something catastrophic happens to me, that I'LL end up getting a fraction of what I "deserve" based on what I've paid into the system? Slim to none, in my estimation, based on my own experience.

So yeah, definitely, have a system in place, a "safety net" for people who work hard, pay into the system, and are truly "in need". But DON'T place any kind of priority on people who "can't work" because "I have anxiety disorder" or "They don't want to start at the bottom and work their way up", or whatever excuses people come up with (I've heard 'em all). And don't reward people for a lifetime of bad choices, either. If people want the government and the taxpayers to support them when they're feeble, it's only fair that they hold up their end and take every possible step to take better care of themselves first, BEFORE walking up to the counter with their hands out.

I know I'm a "cold" person, but I've had a lifetime of hard work for little reward while watching people who do next to nothing get a pat on the ass and a free lunch. And I work out, eat well, take good care of myself... but WHEN something inside of me inevitably breaks down, I already know that I'll be put at the back of the line "because reasons", while some do-nothing parasite will be given a free lunch. Because I've seen it ALL before.

I'm not against the idea of "a system". But it's rife with abuse and people are allowed to get away with murder, generally speaking. Promise "free" care and coverage for anyone "in need", and suddenly everyone is "in need". Then people who truly are in need get muscled out. And that simply isn't right.

People really can't scrimp and save enough money to pay their own medical bills or save for their retirement, unless they're willing to trust someone to invest their money for them (which is a gamble in itself that they're not just scamming you). I understand that. The days of people just squirreling money away in a mattress in preparation of "hard times" simply isn't feasible anymore, and I get that. It is mathematically impossible that someone who's barely covering their bills can whittle away anything more than a few pennies of each paycheck for "savings", be it towards their health or their future or whatever have you. So yes, some kind of social service "safety net" has to be there to help people along. That's all well and good. But it doesn't function as it should, it never has, and will likely only get worse and not better, and THAT is my entire problem with it. Too many people suffer while too many others "get lucky", and it's never based on merit or need.

Fundamentally, I believe that in a horrifically over-populated planet such as ours, people who work should be prioritized over people who don't/won't. Maybe that's "mean", but there simply aren't enough resources to go around and therefore there HAS to be a "pecking order". Contributors should be prioritized over parasites. I'm not going to get any time back for all the hours I put in, don't I deserve SOMEthing at the end of the race? And shouldn't that "something" be more than the guy over there who did nothing but scratch his ass and couch-surf for a few decades while he "got himself figured out"? I worked, he didn't. I made the world a better place for Others, he chose the path of least resistance for Himself. I should take priority over that hypothetical other person. It's only fair.

Again, I know it's harsh, but it's the only way things can ever really be "fair".

[IMJ]

People really can't scrimp and save enough money to pay their own medical bills

The fact is that people with unpaid medical bills aren't generally left to die. In a convo like this, the pop culture argument is to pencil whip that kind of example. Socialism has an ease of accessibility when it comes to pop-culture-comprehension and that drives much of the argument for socialism.

For example, if you turned socialism into a shape that shape would be a cube. It's got square sides, you look at it and fundamentally it's easy to understand. At a glance, all of it's functions fit squarely in a box whether they are right or wrong. Then by comparison if you turn capitalism into a shape, it'd be a sphere with all sorts of strange surfaces like a golfball and spikes sticking out of it and maybe a little wobbly on the surface. And this is because things in capitalism are given rise by need, so the shape isn't as square. The square shape looks prettier so it's easier to understand.

Yet the functional benefits that people cite in socialism are still present in capitalism, but in capitalism they are driven by individual choice while the "need" systems (like someone's example about people dying who don't pay their bills) are given rise as market solutions of profit or charity. In socialism everything is just thrust upon people. And so to people who don't know any better, socialism looks like the better choice because it's just easier to digest. "They take care of you". Boom. Done. But it's not true, although it not being true would require a lot of typing time to explain. The fact is that to the average citizen who didn't specialize in this stuff or just living everyday in the free U.S., the argument for socialism is all pop culture and cliche examples.

The argument that socialism would save the life of someone who does not pay their medical bills while someone in capitalism dies is invalid. It's not true. Capitalism has given rise to the same private and public sector assistance programs that you'll find manifesting as lower quality edicts in socialism.

Everyone is entitled to conversation, but what you'll find is that conversation between informed people versus pop culture conversation tends to be incredibly different. And so when someone asserts a pop-culture point for socialism, the whole conversation then tends to trend on that point but it was never a valid foundation to begin with. Socialism and capitalism are discussions of production, not discussions of bleeding heart. Talking "production" means discussing the functions for and against, while talking "bleeding heart" issues means you'd have to dissect every example in detail just to educate people enough to get to the actual discussion. That's just something to consider in all things when conversing in society to be honest.... "how deep am I going to go into this?" LOL!

But again, with all of that said, the someone dying due to unpaid bills example isn't cogent. Capitalism has given rise to the same private and public sector assistance programs that you'll find manifesting as lower quality edicts in socialism.

[Andrew NDB]

The irony of the Democratic Party nominations: Bloomberg is trying to buy the election with his own money while Bernie Sanders is trying to buy the election with government money.

[IMJ]

The irony of the Democratic Party nominations: Bloomberg is trying to buy the election with his own money while Bernie Sanders is trying to buy the election with government money.

Speaking purely about Bloomberg's campaign methodology and not about his policy or beliefs at all:

On one hand it's absolutely ridiculous that Bloomberg would have any following at all considering that any of his current relevance has come from literally just throwing money out there.

On the other hand I'm impressed as hell how as a C-lister in his party he's managed to get his name out there by an extreme war of attrition against his fellow Dem candidates - he made a tough but smart decision to outspend them to overcome them. Other candidates, like Yang were being shut out, but Bloomberg found a way to hold in there a little longer. But now he's got to make it count.

[Redeemer]

Well, he's not a candidate that's electable. If way less than 50% of Americans want socialism, how is more than 50% going to vote him in? By him explaining the virtues of "democratic" socialism over and over again?

Thats the exact thing they said about Trump...... and look at where we are at now. Bernie is probably the most electable candidate of any candidate for two reasons. 1. He resonates with younger voters. (Just like Obama.) 2. He entices independent voters as an outsider just like Trump did.

Because most of the country wants aboslutely nothing to do with socialism.

I think everyone in this thread is getting Socialism and social programs confused. Socialism is the a economical theory/ practice in which goods, currency, businesses are owned by the community as a whole.(Government.)

This is not remotely what Bernie Sanders is advocating. Bernie actually wants to go after certain big businesses such as tech industry giants using anti-trust laws to break up the monotony and create competition. He also wants to go after "agri-business" as well which both practices are far from socialism practices.

All because some one advocates for strong social policies does not make them a socialist. I don't think people realize it but we have the worse rated healthcare system of any first world country...... yep the country with a private healthcare system is dead last compared to public healthcare system countries...... Also our infant mortality rate is that of a developing country which is unacceptable....

People also don't realize this, but the US became a world power because of our social programs. We were the first industrialized country to offer and mandate free edition for children which gave our economy educated workers that proved to be invaluable to our economy and gave us a huge economic advantage over most countries.

For people to appose social programs because they apposite socialism is just pure ignorance and should reevaluate their ideas as well as educate themselves on economic theories, history, and practices.
*I am not calling anyone ignorant in this thread, this is simply more my experience with the average American.

[IMJ]

Thats the exact thing they said about Trump...... and look at where we are at now. Bernie is probably the most electable candidate of any candidate for two reasons. 1. He resonates with younger voters. (Just like Obama.) 2. He entices independent voters as an outsider just like Trump did.

There is some truth to this, although I'd still err on that regardless of perception/misperception regarding the nature of Bernies "socialism", voters wouldn't put a socialist leaning candidate in office - at least not while the Baby Boomers and Gen X is still voting. But that's just my take on it....

I think everyone in this thread is getting Socialism and social programs confused.

Socialism is the a economical theory/ practice in which goods, currency, businesses are owned by the community as a whole.(Government.)

Definitely not true about the confusion given my two posts above. Combine that with what you say in the quote just above and I'd say that we both said the same thing. However, my intent above was to use that info to talk about the nature of the conversation rather than to define socialism for everybody reading.


This is not remotely what Bernie Sanders is advocating. Bernie actually wants to go after certain big businesses such as tech industry giants using anti-trust laws to break up the monotony and create competition. He also wants to go after "agri-business" as well which both practices are far from socialism practices.

All because some one advocates for strong social policies does not make them a socialist.

There's probably some truth to this. I can see what you are saying here. But there's a slippery slope there that we are nicely balanced at already, given the early "roads & programs argument".

I don't think people realize it but we have the worse rated healthcare system of any first world country...... yep the country with a private healthcare system is dead last compared to public healthcare system countries...... Also our infant mortality rate is that of a developing country which is unacceptable....

-oof- This point.... man I have the honest answers for these but sitting here to type them out. -ugh- The short is that the solution is in the free market evolution of improved health care which we already have examples of (i.e. a certain style of "clinic", an organization that creates vaccines in weeks, I could go on, but... eh). And the mortality rate thing is an argument of correlation not causation. Basically as you are using it, it's our healthcare system which causes this as oppose to a cross section of choices regarding why these people unfortunately perish. But that's a whole can of worms. In short, it's possible that if the mortality rate thing as you've cited is true, it could be a function of personal living & behavior problems first rather than medical services problems after birth. We'd need more on that to really determine anything, but that's what happens with "pop culture statistics". I'm not saying your wrong per se, but as you've correlated the two you don't know that it's correct either.

People also don't realize this, but the US became a world power because of our social programs.

We were the first industrialized country to offer and mandate free edition for children

For people to appose social programs because they apposite socialism is just pure ignorance

Most people also don't realize that there was a "Federalist" party before the current bi-parisan structure. But that's neither here nor there because in the context you've presented it note that conversely, to advocate for socialism because of the use of a few socialist structures is also ignorance. I mean, I think you've made a decent point there, but I'm just saying.....

should reevaluate their ideas as well as educate themselves on economic theories, history, and practices.

This is also what I was getting at with my two posts above, but without hitting anyone over the head with it so strongly, lol!

*I am not calling anyone ignorant in this thread, this is simply more my experience with the average American.

It was an interesting post..... I have some appreciation for it.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Im not ever giving up Free Market Capitalism because I can't imagine living in a world without McDonald's and Coca Cola.

[Leo656]

Im not ever giving up Free Market Capitalism because I can't imagine living in a world without Fat People.

Fixed. :lol:

[Voltron]

In Leo656's defense, he did mention public works which includes hospitals, and made a clear distinction between those in need and those who willingly bring destruction on themselves.

Noted! But that's still a very big pool to draw from.

In another thread, Sumac mentioned (paraphrasing) that the people at "the top", the innovators and billionaires of society, are what drive progress and are a cut above the common masses.

I'm curious as to how this impacts the decisions when it comes to concessions by people who typically lean away from social programs. When Leo says that some provisions should be made for workers and productive members of society, I want to know if there's a limit to these concessions.

Bear in mind, I understand that the the super rich don't need to wait in line like the rest of us. They have the means to supersede us in line by virtue of their wealth. I totally get that.

What I want to know is: what is the proper metric to use when administering social services and distributing resources? Is it a person's bank account? The value of their work? Their collective knowledge? Physical attributes?

I ask this because when the issue of socialized healthcare comes up, people immediately bring up the issue of who deserves to be saved. But there's rarely ever a description of who deserves to be saved. Whom should we let die?

With that being said, we do use metrics for major surgeries and medical procedures. Doctors consider a patient's age and health before moving ahead with any large actions. People are denied transplants all the time due to age, physical strength, chronic diseases, and history of substance abuse.

In short: I understand that we're not going to have a perfect solution to all of this stuff. I'm curious as to how the problems should be addressed.

[IMJ]

Im not ever giving up Free Market Capitalism because I can't imagine living in a world without McDonald's and Coca Cola.

Fixed. :lol:

And in the spirit of that please allow me to add that the rise of McDonalds also allowed for the free market rise of great American businesses like Jenny Craig!

:o :lol::)

[turtle1237]

The irony of the Democratic Party nominations: Bloomberg is trying to buy the election with his own money while Bernie Sanders is trying to buy the election with government money.

Trump treats this like WWE, and Bloomberg treats it like a stripclub lol. This is going to be one odd run for the white house.

[IMJ]

Trump treats this like WWE, and Bloomberg treats it like a stripclub lol. This is going to be one odd run for the white house.

Now I want to see some kind of parody of this like you'd see in an old Naked Gun movie.

A bunch of people acting like Dems at a debate. And as they are casually talking, one just hits one with a chair, but nobody changes the cadence of conversation. Someone else just grabs the "Warren-archetype" and body slams her. Everyone keeps making their points, but then the Biden archetype does the Captain Kirk two-legged jump kick to the chest of the Bloomberg archetype. Then the Bloomberg archetype just stands back up really quickly and starts talking while he's got the Biden-guy in a headlock....

LMAO! This skit needs to be done....