Will Trump win again???

[deleted87051]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I want capitalism that works. Our regulations stifle competition in the name of safety. If this is true by all means keep it. But, crony capitalism isn't real capitalism. No point continuing this discussion as Socialism doesn't work, has never worked and will fail in the USA.

Our current system is crony capitalism, our so called elected “leaders” bought and paid for by commercial interests. Thus the emerging socialist backlash. Indeed that is also part of the reason Trump won the election.

 

[SeniorWrangler]

The year was 1994 and in today's Democrat Party Bill Clinton would be a Republican.

But Republicans called Bill Clinton socialist. I think that’s the real reason Millenials are pro-socialism; they’ve heard every kind of moderate safety net and social reform be labeled socialism.

That plus everything that’s happened after 2000: Iraq War, Great Recession, etc etc.

 

[Apollyon]

Concerning the race issue, the biggest one that stands out to me is the Philando Castile case where a law abiding black gun owner was shot by a cop and the NRA reeeeeallllyyy dragged their feet. One of their NRATV correspondents even tried to defend the shooting by saying that the black man being shot was carrying a small amount of marijuana in his car and therefore was carrying illegally. This is an absurd argument because A) the officer couldn’t have known about the weed and B) it wouldn’t have justified Philando Castiles murder.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/09/the-nras-internal-revolt-over-philando-castile/

I just laugh that there are "420" people talking about this.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Maybe if companies spent $15 billion on paying employees fair wages instead of spending it on stock buybacks to further enrich CEOs and shareholders we can talk about a system where people pay cash for primary care visits, but that America doesn’t exist.

Except people already do with the expansion of high deductible insurance plans.

 

[deleted171991]

unfortunately we are brainwashed by professors in higher education

We should have a Hatch Act for universities who take federal money (i.e. loans).
.

 

[deleted171991]

Looks like your teachers skipped the American revolutionary war, which was all.about British tyranny. And an armed people rose up to defeat tyranny.

That was with the guns from 250 years ago. Nowadays, you get civil wars and widespread destruction. Just look at Africa or the Middle East.

 

[pgg]

This is why the current generation feels that they cannot be rewarded for hard work, it's because they are unable to do the work we need in the 21st century, because we gave them a 1950's education.

Actually, we're putting a higher percentage of the population through universities than ever before. A very real problem is that not enough people are pursuing vocational training. We're probably giving too many people the chance to go to college.

 

[deleted171991]

Our current system is crony capitalism, our so called elected “leaders” bought and paid for by commercial interests. Thus the emerging socialist backlash. Indeed that is also part of the reason Trump won the election.

This country went South in the last 30-50 years or so, once lobbying became widespread. It didn't use to be like it is today.

"Another trend emerged: the revolving door. Before the mid 1970s, it was rare that a congressperson upon retirement would work for a lobbying firm and when it did occasionally happen, it "made eyebrows rise".[22] Prior to the 1980s lawmakers rarely became lobbyists as the profession was generally considered 'tainted' and 'unworthy' for once-elected officials such as themselves; in addition lobbying firms and trade groups were leery of hiring former members of Congress because they were reputed to be 'lazy as lobbyists and unwilling to ask former colleagues for favors'. By 2007, there were 200 former members of the House and Senate were registered lobbyists.[22] New higher salaries for lobbyists, increasing demand and a greater turnover in Congress and a 1994 change in the control of the House contributed to a change in attitude about the appropriateness of former elected officials becoming lobbyists. The revolving door became an established arrangement" (Wikipedia)

 

[deleted171991]

Actually, we're putting a higher percentage of the population through universities than ever before. A very real problem is that not enough people are pursuing vocational training. We're probably giving too many people the chance to go to college.

Because that's the latest brainwash, in line with "every American should own a house".

 

[aafisahar]

You are clearly ignorant of this nation's history in the late 1800's and early 1900s before there were any social programs.
The poor in this nation have never had it any better. No country has lifted more people out of poverty than the USA.

By the standards of pre-social program era the poor have never had it better. There is more mobility in the USA than almost anywhere else in world. The left is lying when they say otherwise. The USA is still THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY.

If you actually look at the data, European countries have much more economic mobility than the US.

Socioeconomic mobility in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This wikipedia page actually provides data and demonstrates that where you are born and who you are born to makes a much bigger difference than anything else.

All you do is spout one-liners without understanding the data or background and are blind to data and facts. You do this thread a disservice.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

If you actually look at the data, European countries have much more economic mobility than the US.

Socioeconomic mobility in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This wikipedia page actually provides data and demonstrates that where you are born and who you are born to makes a much bigger difference than anything else.

All you do is spout one-liners without understanding the data or background and are blind to data and facts. You do this thread a disservice.

The problem with the data from that article is that is uses flawed reasoning. It uses quintiles of income. The problem with that is that it is a zero sum game. For you to go up into the next income bracket, someone else has to go down. That definition of income mobility is problematic for the obvious reasons.

Here's data that suggests a different picture: Yes, the US middle class is shrinking, but it's because Americans are moving up. And no, Americans are not struggling to afford a home. - AEI

 

[BLADEMDA]

If you actually look at the data, European countries have much more economic mobility than the US.

Socioeconomic mobility in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This wikipedia page actually provides data and demonstrates that where you are born and who you are born to makes a much bigger difference than anything else.

All you do is spout one-liners without understanding the data or background and are blind to data and facts. You do this thread a disservice.

The facts are this country is still great and people are lining up to get in legally from all over the world. The USA is one of the best, if not the best, country to be born in no matter what your family’s social status. I have met countless people from many countries who are successful and proud Americans now. They worked their asses off and have succeeded because we are still the land of opportunity.

If you are willing to work hard financial success isn’t just possible it is highly likely. I want to keep America as the land of opportunity for everyone who has the motivation and energy to ride the economic ladder.

Milton Friedman was crystal cleat about what type of nation succeeds and what type fails. Even the so called Communists in China know this is true which is why Hong Kong has thrived for decades.

Socialism destroys economies and wrecks nations. Despite all its flaws capitalism is the only form of government which actually works. The USA and many European nations have tempered raw capitalism with social programs and a safety net. This hybrid system mostly works as long as capitalism remains relatively intact.

Sweden figured this out in the early 1980s. Have you watched the you tube video on Sweden? Socialism in Sweden failed as it will fail here in the USA.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

That was with the guns from 250 years ago. Nowadays, you get civil wars and widespread destruction. Just look at Africa or the Middle East.

Would Cuba be Cuba as it is today if Che didnt have access to guns?

 

[PainDrain]

As I write this today I believe Trump will win re-election and there are two recent developments that will sway the election. I believe Trump will make a “deal” with China on trade in the next month or so, but the “deal” will have no teeth and it will be largely a symbolic appeasement to the markets. As many critics have pointed out in recent years, Trump loves to blow things up for better “deals” and then has backtracked. His followers love the appearance and don’t understand the ramifications or results. This may or may not stave off recession.

The second development is the latest Kavanaugh allegation. I think this will simply energize the block of the base who only care about nominating conservative judges.

 

[BLADEMDA]

As I write this today I believe Trump will win re-election and there are two recent developments that will sway the election. I believe Trump will make a “deal” with China on trade in the next month or so, but the “deal” will have no teeth and it will be largely a symbolic appeasement to the markets. As many critics have pointed out in recent years, Trump loves to blow things up for better “deals” and then has backtracked. His followers love the appearance and don’t understand the ramifications or results. This may or may not stave off recession.

The second development is the latest Kavanaugh allegation. I think this will simply energize the block of the base who only care about nominating conservative judges.

There is no evidence Kavanaugh is a sexual predator or committed assault. I believe he got drunk in college and showed his penis at a party to a girl or two. That was stupid and disrespect but hardly disqualified him from the judiciary.

Trump can’t afford a recession before the 2020 election. If the economy tanks then his Re-election chances tank as well. So, Trump May very well make a crappy deal with China. A recession after the election is still likely.

 

[PainDrain]

There is no evidence Kavanaugh is a sexual predator or committed assault. I believe he got drunk in college and showed his penis at a party to a girl or two. That was stupid and disrespect but hardly disqualified him from the judiciary.

Trump can’t afford a recession before the 2020 election. If the economy tanks then his Re-election chances tank as well. So, Trump May very well make a crappy deal with China. A recession after the election is still likely.

I also don’t believe Kavanaugh is a predator. I think he is a frat boy who did some stupid stuff while drunk. I honestly could care less about that. What concerns me more is that it is fairly clear he lied over his role in the Bush stolen documents controversy. That should have been the focus of his confirmation but the Dems, stupidly, chose to go after him in another way.


I also agree Trump can’t afford a recession and he will do everything to avoid it, including making a lousy deal with China. He likely will do it just to attempt a win he can lay his re-election on.

The true wild card that has presented itself in the last 24 hours and I failed to take into account is the Saudi oil attacks. If Trump ratchets up the heat in the ME and does something stupid like attack Iran; he has the possibility of tanking the economy. Rising oil prices will be a drag on any economic stimulus from other measures. I am sure Iran will continue its aggression regardless of what Trump does.

 

[deleted50478]

The facts are this country is still great and people are lining up to get in legally from all over the world. The USA is one of the best, if not the best, country to be born in no matter what your family’s social status. I have met countless people from many countries who are successful and proud Americans now. They worked their asses off and have succeeded because we are still the land of opportunity.

If you are willing to work hard financial success isn’t just possible it is highly likely. I want to keep America as the land of opportunity for everyone who has the motivation and energy to ride the economic ladder.

Milton Friedman was crystal cleat about what type of nation succeeds and what type fails. Even the so called Communists in China know this is true which is why Hong Kong has thrived for decades.

Socialism destroys economies and wrecks nations. Despite all its flaws capitalism is the only form of government which actually works. The USA and many European nations have tempered raw capitalism with social programs and a safety net. This hybrid system mostly works as long as capitalism remains relatively intact.

Sweden figured this out in the early 1980s. Have you watched the you tube video on Sweden? Socialism in Sweden failed as it will fail here in the USA.

You don’t have to accept a plutocracy to get the benefits of capitalism.

 

[pgg]

The second development is the latest Kavanaugh allegation. I think this will simply energize the block of the base who only care about nominating conservative judges.

RBG will probably not survive past the election too. I think we all know what a palliative biliary stent and radiation means, despite her habit of "beating" cancer previously. So there's another open seat that will energize the base and get the evangelicals out to hold their noses for President Trump one more time. The right seems to be motivated by the judiciary more than the left.

 

[BLADEMDA]

RBG will probably not survive past the election too. I think we all know what a palliative biliary stent and radiation means, despite her habit of "beating" cancer previously. So there's another open seat that will energize the base and get the evangelicals out to hold their noses for President Trump one more time. The right seems to be motivated by the judiciary more than the left.

An unchecked socialist running the country is pretty scary to many of us. SCOTUS is our best chance of keeping our fundamental rights in place like the second amendment. In addition, the limits of taxation on our money will be tested by socialist policies. A conservative SCOTUS is likely to show restraint on the governments desire to double tax our money.

This is no longer about abortion but the very core of USA values like limited government and the Bill of Rights. As Socialism will begin to restrict many aspects of our lives SCOTUS May be the last hope we have of a truly free America.

The best thing Donald Trump has done was NOT the tax cuts but appoint conservative justices to the bench. One more appointment to SCOTUS would make Voting for Trump a good decision after all.

 

[PainDrain]

RBG will probably not survive past the election too. I think we all know what a palliative biliary stent and radiation means, despite her habit of "beating" cancer previously. So there's another open seat that will energize the base and get the evangelicals out to hold their noses for President Trump one more time. The right seems to be motivated by the judiciary more than the left.

Yah, things don’t look good for Ruth. I honestly don’t see how any true conservative, if the definition of conservative means keeping government out of people’s lives/“liberty”, could be against Roe. The basis of the Roe decision is Griswold and that helped establish that the government has no role in people’s personal private lives. The fact that the government could some day prevent someone, or thereby force someone, to carry a pregnancy to term is insane.

 

[PainDrain]

An unchecked socialist running the country is pretty scary to many of us. SCOTUS is our best chance of keeping our fundamental rights in place like the second amendment. In addition, the limits of taxation on our money will be tested by socialist policies. A conservative SCOTUS is likely to show restraint on the governments desire to double tax our money.

This is no longer about abortion but the very core of USA values like limited government and the Bill of Rights. As Socialism will begin to restrict many aspects of our lives SCOTUS May be the last hope we have of a truly free America.

We have a socialist system right now, it’s simply corporate socialism. 18 billion in subsidies to the petroleum industry is horrendous. Imagine that money spent in a meaningful way.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Yah, things don’t look good for Ruth. I honestly don’t see how any true conservative, if the definition of conservative means keeping government out of people’s lives/“liberty”, could be against Roe. The basis of the Roe decision is Griswold and that helped establish that the government has no role in people’s personal private lives. The fact that the government could some day prevent someone, or thereby force someone, to carry a pregnancy to term is insane.

The bold is the key. If you truly believe that a fetus is a person, it becomes about the fetus's life which most of the time overrides the liberty of the mother.

I don't agree with that viewpoint but I understand it.

 

[PainDrain]

The bold is the key. If you truly believe that a fetus is a person, it becomes about the fetus's life which most of the time overrides the liberty of the mother.

I don't agree with that viewpoint but I understand it.

I know the argument but if you remove all religious motivation from the argument then it fails. Also, and I realize this is a minority of the cases, but saying someone should carry the child of their rapist or relative, in cases of incest, is just crazy. To say a non-viable entity deserves to be carried to term so that it can suffer and then die is crazy.

One thing that I think the GOP fails to understand is that if you take away Roe, the backlash may be so extreme that they could lose power for years to come.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I know the argument but if you remove all religious motivation from the argument then it fails. Also, and I realize this is a minority of the cases, but saying someone should carry the child of their rapist or relative, in cases of incest, is just crazy. To say a non-viable entity deserves to be carried to term so that it can suffer and then die is crazy.

One thing that I think the GOP fails to understand is that if you take away Roe, the backlash may be so extreme that they could lose power for years to come.

What does religion have to do with anything?

Non-viable and mother's health are 2 common exceptions even in fairly restrictive abortion bans.

I think there's a good chance you're right about the political backlash should Roe be overturned.

 

[BLADEMDA]

We have a socialist system right now, it’s simply corporate socialism. 18 billion in subsidies to the petroleum industry is horrendous. Imagine that money spent in a meaningful way.

18 billion? That’s a rounding error for Warren and Sanders. We are talking trillions in new socialist programs

 

[agammaglobulin]

Yes, I am blaming it on the billionaires. They’ve commandeered the government to serve them. Right now the government exists only to make the rich richer. That is the purpose of our government right now. That is not the intended purpose, but that is what it is doing. We are seeing record stock market highs and record amounts of wealth in this country, yet that wealth is enjoyed by a select few. The rest are seeing their small towns decimated and are working multiple jobs just to pay the bills. Yet we keep talking about how all you need to do is work a little harder to achieve the American dream.

The Republicans want to blame brown-skinned people for those problems and the Democrats want to blame the billionaires. Who you blame for causing America not to be great is who you will vote for. That’s what it comes down to. All the stuff about guns and abortions are side show issues, which may swing a few votes here and there, but people really vote about economic issues at the heart of it.

This seems extreme. We have the lowest unemployment rate and, for the first time, the rate of wage increase is growing faster for hourly workers (vs salaried). There is nothing wrong with being wealthy or 'billionaires'. The problem we should focus on is how to help the poor. Not how to tear down the rich. When society gets wealthier we all benefit. Not necessarily the same amount or rate, but everyone moves up. Compare the poorest 1% in the US vs poorest 1% in an African nation. Our poor have smart phones and cable TV, Africa's poor have Kwashiokor and Cholera. Whether or not the top 1% is driving Ferrari's and has private jets shouldn't necessarily be the focus. However, I agree that a society wants to avoid corruption and taking advantage of people to further wealth creation at the top...

The big thing I think you forget about from a policy perspective is SCALE. Scale is what takes people out of poverty and changes lives long term. Not short term gains from taking from the rich and giving to the poor. By taxing the hell out of people on top, you get less investment into new businesses and ideas.

There's a great article about this from the WSJ below.

Advice to New Grads: Scale or Bail
Want to change the world? Don’t bother volunteering—get a real, ‘boring’ job.


Dear Grads: How can you make an impact on this world? Michael Keaton told Kent State students, “I’m Batman.” Ronan Farrow encouraged Loyola Marymount’s class of 2018 to “trust that inner voice.” Human-rights lawyer Amal Clooney told Vanderbilt grads last week, “Courage is needed more than ever.”
Maybe you’re looking for something less vacuous than warmed over “Wizard of Oz” themes? If so, put down your JUUL vape pen, unplug from “Fortnite,” tuck in your “I Am the Change” shirt, and listen up. Scale or bail.

Many of you graduates think you want socially conscious careers—giving back, fighting injustice and making a difference. “Well, you know, we all want to change the world.” You want to reduce inequality, end poverty, comfort the homeless, expand human dignity. Guess what? Me too! But you’re going about it the wrong way.

Some 44% of millennials believe they do more to support social causes than the rest of their family, according to the 2017 Millennial Impact report. If you’re volunteering at shelters or working for most nonprofits, that’s all very nice, but it’s one-off. You’re one of the privileged few who have the education to create lasting change. It may feel good to ladle soup to the hungry, but you’re wasting valuable brain waves that could be spent ushering in a future in which no one is hungry to begin with.
There’s a word that was probably never mentioned by your professors: Scale. No, not the stuff on the bottom of your bong or bathtub. It’s the concept of taking a small idea and finding ways to implement it for thousands, or millions, or even billions. Without scale, ideas are no more than hot air. Stop doing the one-off two-step. It’s time to scale up.
I hear you talking about food deserts and the need for urban eco-farms to enable food justice. You certainly have the jargon down. You can hoe and sickle and grow rutabagas to feed a few hungry folks, but then it’s really all about you. A better option: Find a way to revamp food distribution to lower prices. Or reinvent how food is grown and enriched to enable healthier diets. Call it a Neo-Green Revolution.
Don’t spend all your time caring for the sick. Prevent disease. Gene therapy, early detection and immunotherapy can change the trajectory of disease because they scale. Don’t build temporary shelters. Figure out how to 3-D print real homes quickly and cheaply. Why tutor a few students when you can capture lessons from best-of-breed teachers and deliver them electronically to millions? That’s scale.

Scale is about doing more with less. From just an idea, you really do get something for nothing. It’s about the productivity increases that create wealth. There is too much talk of sustainability, the fight over slices of a pie, zero-sum games. That’s the wrong framework. You need sustainability only if you stick to one-off moves.
Perhaps you’re doubtful. You’ve been drilled to fear a dystopian future. Relax; the world is not going to hell in a Whole Foods handbasket. “The Handmaid’s Tale” is not a documentary. Technology exists to enable scale. Only with productive jobs can you figure out which problems are important and have a fighting chance to scale and solve them.
I know what you’re thinking: A “real” job sounds boring. Your business-intelligence analyst title won’t sound as interesting at EDM festivals compared with your friend’s project to raise $10,000 and clean up a few tenements in a Rio de Janeiro favela. But I can guarantee you’re the one having real influence.
Everyone asks, “What do you do?” If you’re employed in a business that scales—and most “boring” jobs are—tell people you’re solving global poverty. Because it’s true. You’ll be more significant than selfish socially conscious conspirators. They get psychic gratification while you get the job done.

I understand that you’re young and striving for a purpose—intentional inclusivity, whole self, intersectionality, detoxifying oppression, whatever. Great. Keep that fire in your belly. But when you see oppression, think opportunity. Channel that energy to change the stagnant status quo through scale in education, banking and especially government.
If you don’t think I’m credible, you too can listen to Bono. As he told Georgetown students a few years ago, “Entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid.” Of course it does. Want to change the world? Stop doing one-off volunteering and scale up.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Warren advocates a "Medicare for all Option" and massive tax increases for most physicians. Does that not concern any of you? I am not just talking income tax rates but rather a whole slew of new taxes. FYI, you are the "high income" American she will tax and tax to pay for her social agenda. I'm sure a few you don't care how much she taxes because you are die hard socialists.

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren, seeking to sustain her momentum in the Democratic presidential race, is proposing an across-the-board increase in Social Security benefits, financed by new taxes on high-income Americans.
Rolling out the plan Thursday morning, hours before the third presidential debate, Warren called for an immediate benefit increase of $200 per month for current and future beneficiaries. At the same time, the Massachusetts Democrat proposed new rules that would provide additional benefit increases for low-income, female, disabled, minority, and former government worker beneficiaries, reasoning that they’ve been shortchanged by the existing structure of the program.

To pay for it, Warren would impose new taxes on what she calls the richest 2% of Americans. She would eliminate the income cap on Social Security taxes for those earning more than $250,000 a year, imposing a 14.8% levy on incomes above that amount, split evenly between employers and employees.
In addition, she is calling for another 14.8% levy on investment income for individuals earning more than $250,000 and couples earning more than $400,000. Taken together, according to an analysis Warren released from Moody’s economist Mark Zandi, those taxes would not only pay for the new benefits but provide enough additional revenue to extend Social Security’s solvency by 19 years beyond current projections."

 

[deleted87051]

U.S. Federal Budget Breakdown

The FY 2022 federal budget proposal was over $6 trillion, with an estimated revenue of about $4.2 trillion, creating a deficit worth about $1.9 trillion.

www.thebalance.com

 

[deleted171991]

Would Cuba be Cuba as it is today if Che didnt have access to guns?

I am proud to say that I have no idea of Che's life or Cuba's history. 😛

 

[Planktonmd]

I am proud to say that I have no idea of Che's life or Cuba's history. 😛

Che Guevara was a hard core communist rebel and professional guerrilla soldier who teamed up with Fidel Castro and organized a military coup backed by the Russians against Batista the military dictator backed by the united states. This was basically another proxy war between the U.S. and the soviets.
This is basically the short version of the modern history of Cuba.
I am not sure how this is relevant to the current discussion where someone is suggesting that armed people in a country like the united states can actually fight the government like they did 300 years ago!

 

[deleted171991]

When about gun ownership and mass shootings, we should learn from the Swiss:

Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership — here's why it doesn't have mass shootings

Here's what the US can learn from Switzerland, which has nearly eliminated mass shootings while maintaining a high rate of gun ownership.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Mikkel]

When about gun ownership and mass shootings, we should learn from the Swiss:

Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership — here's why it doesn't have mass shootings

Here's what the US can learn from Switzerland, which has nearly eliminated mass shootings while maintaining a high rate of gun ownership.

www.businessinsider.com

I read the article, but I don't see any lesson. It's a series of statistics with no logical comparison other than apples to oranges.

 

[deleted50478]

Che Guevara was a hard core communist rebel and professional guerrilla soldier who teamed up with Fidel Castro and organized a military coup backed by the Russians against Batista the military dictator backed by the united states. This was basically another proxy war between the U.S. and the soviets.
This is basically the short version of the modern history of Cuba.
I am not sure how this is relevant to the current discussion where someone is suggesting that armed people in a country like the united states can actually fight the government like they did 300 years ago!

That’s not very accurate for the Cuban revolution. Che and Raul were communists, but the revolution wasn’t communist. On the contrary the revolution was, at times supported by the CIA, but probably not very significantly since they were playing both sides.
It was only after the revolution and Cuba took ownership of American property in Cuba that Cuba became part of the Soviet sphere to avoid being economically decimated by the US. The Cuban revolution was anything but a proxy war between the US and Soviets. Sure, the Cuban missile crisis was a major Cold War conflict that took place in Cuba, but that was long after their revolution.
Che was a doctor who became a revolutionary during the years it took the Cuban revolution to succeed, and yeah he became a failed revolutionary in Africa and South America after that, but he wasn’t like a professional soldier early on.
But yeah, they needed guns.

 

[BLADEMDA]

My best guess is that Warren will get the Democrat nomination. She will run a tough campaign against Trump. I think she wins the general election in 2020

But, I also think the GOP retains the Senate effectively blocking most of her tax increases for the first 2 years.

In the end, not a whole lot changes but liberals can finally stop screaming about Trump. I think Warren will use executive orders to reverse many of Trump’s policies and tariffs to deal with Climate Change.

Warren won’t even be able to get all her Democrats to back her ideas in the Senate.

 

[deleted50478]

My best guess is that Warren will get the Democrat nomination. She will run a tough campaign against Trump. I think she wins the general election in 2020

But, I also think the GOP retains the Senate effectively blocking most of her tax increases for the first 2 years.

In the end, not a whole lot changes but liberals can finally stop screaming about Trump. I think Warren will use executive orders to reverse many of Trump’s policies and tariffs to deal with Climate Change.

Warren won’t even be able to get all her Democrats to back her ideas in the Senate.

Warren minus Medicare For All doesn’t sound so bad. Increasing payroll taxes is appropriate though it should be accompanied by a staged increase in age of eligibility and a clamp down on false disability claims.

 

[Twiggidy]

My best guess is that Warren will get the Democrat nomination. She will run a tough campaign against Trump. I think she wins the general election in 2020

But, I also think the GOP retains the Senate effectively blocking most of her tax increases for the first 2 years.

In the end, not a whole lot changes but liberals can finally stop screaming about Trump. I think Warren will use executive orders to reverse many of Trump’s policies and tariffs to deal with Climate Change.

Warren won’t even be able to get all her Democrats to back her ideas in the Senate.

Pretty solid prediction

 

[doctalaughs]

My best guess is that Warren will get the Democrat nomination. She will run a tough campaign against Trump. I think she wins the general election in 2020

But, I also think the GOP retains the Senate effectively blocking most of her tax increases for the first 2 years.

In the end, not a whole lot changes but liberals can finally stop screaming about Trump. I think Warren will use executive orders to reverse many of Trump’s policies and tariffs to deal with Climate Change.

Warren won’t even be able to get all her Democrats to back her ideas in the Senate.

The problem with Warren is that she will almost certainly destroy the economy by scaring corporations silly. 100% that we go into a recession if she wins (we may not be able to avoid this even if she isn’t the nominee -but I foresee a longer/worse recession if is she is).

I like the fact she’s way sharper and more passionate than Biden, but just can’t get on board with her policies. And I actually agree with her basic premise that there is a major problem with ultra-wealthy and mega-corporations having too much power; I just think her proposals to fix it will be disastrous...

 

[agammaglobulin]

I like the fact she’s way sharper and more passionate than Biden, but just can’t get on board with her policies. And I actually agree with her basic premise that there is a major problem with ultra-wealthy and mega-corporations having too much power; I just think her proposals to fix it will be disastrous...

This is my issue with most of the DNC candidates. It's easy to say (and agree with) what the problem is (climate change, wealth disparity, homelessness, racism, etc) but it is much harder to come up with a viable solution. Most of the candidates solutions to these problems are terrible. Healthcare is broken = Medicare for all! Student debt is out of control = Forgive it all! Free tuition for everyone! Climate is changing = $16 Trillion plan! Persistent racism = Reparations! People shooting each other = Take away all the guns!

I can't get on-board...

 

[sleepallday]

This is my issue with most of the DNC candidates. It's easy to say (and agree with) what the problem is (climate change, wealth disparity, homelessness, racism, etc) but it is much harder to come up with a viable solution. Most of the candidates solutions to these problems are terrible. Healthcare is broken = Medicare for all! Student debt is out of control = Forgive it all! Free tuition for everyone! Climate is changing = $16 Trillion plan! Persistent racism = Reparations! People shooting each other = Take away all the guns!

I can't get on-board...

So if you all agree that these are all problems but not not the right solutions (not that I agree with all the solutions either)- what are some of the solutions Trump or republicans in general have come up with for these issues?

*hint- they don't think they're problems*

 

[BLADEMDA]

The problem with Warren is that she will almost certainly destroy the economy by scaring corporations silly. 100% that we go into a recession if she wins (we may not be able to avoid this even if she isn’t the nominee -but I foresee a longer/worse recession if is she is).

I like the fact she’s way sharper and more passionate than Biden, but just can’t get on board with her policies. And I actually agree with her basic premise that there is a major problem with ultra-wealthy and mega-corporations having too much power; I just think her proposals to fix it will be disastrous...

I can honestly say this thread has opened my eyes to some of the issues the liberals on here support. Sure, I disagree with them (mostly) but I do see their point of view and can even live with higher taxes if that would solve the problem

Let's take a look at some:

1. Medicare for all- too much money, public not ready for it, some Democrats won't go along. So, Warren will settle for a public option on the exchange with a buy-in at age 50 or 55.

2. Green New Deal- too expensive, too draconian as well. Warren will settle for higher taxes on fossil fuels, more regulations and tariffs on imported items which have a carbon footprint.

3. Abortion- No change. Hot button issue.

4. Illegal Immigration- Again, the GOP and DEMs are too far apart. I honestly try to see the Dems point of view but can't agree with it. I can never support those who break our laws and/or refuse to follow the process. I support a workers program for those wanting to come to the USA. No citizenship for the law breakers. This isn't about racism but the rule of law.

5. Taxes- The Trump tax cut doesn't help the middle class. While my taxes will go up I support a return to the Clinton era tax code. I would prefer to leave most of corporate tax cuts in place for big business and impose a higher tax on the top 0.1%

6. Capital gains loop holes- close these hedge fund loop holes and raise short term capital gains. Maybe, a 5% increase on short and long term capital gains. This affects me so I don't post it lightly.

7. Gun Control- Background check for all sales including private ones. A 5 year moratorium on new AR15 and AK47 purchases. No Gun confiscations or mandatory buy backs. Only the AK47 and AR15 weapons are part of the moratorium.
Other "assault looking weapons" like my carbine are not affected.

8. Social Security- Raise SS taxes by 1% for everyone.

9. China- Get a real trade deal with China with the primary goal of preventing intellectual theft.

10. No student loan forgiveness, No reparations

Boys and girls, that is as far left as I can go in 2019. Peace to all.

 

[deleted500612]

So if you all agree that these are all problems but not not the right solutions (not that I agree with all the solutions either)- what are some of the solutions Trump or republicans in general have come up with for these issues?

*hint- they don't think they're problems*

Don’t entirely agree, they do believe much of these are problems, but their proposed/attempted solutions are just different.

-isms: Modern conservative approach is simply encouraging/ensuring everybody is treated as equals without discrimination and are judged on an individual basis of merit. Contrast this to the modern leftist approach of classifying and judging people primarily based on gender, race, orientation, and handing out special privileges, advantages, and handicaps accordingly. Hiring/enrollment practices are based foremost on meeting diversity quotas rather than merit.

Wealth disparity: Conservatives believe this is not inherently a problem and instead are focusing on improving the economy/job opportunities for the working class to raise their standard of living of their own accord rather than redistributing wealth. Modern leftists believe wealth disparity is inherently a problem that needs to be corrected primarily by massive redistribution of wealth and social security handouts rather than by improving opportunities
for working class people to make their own living (all the DNC candidate platforms are focusing on wealth redistribution programs rather than ways to improve the economy or job prospects etc). I think these policies are a result of the modern day prevalence of tall poppy syndrome on the left; people are more concerned with how they are living compared to everyone else rather than their own objective standard of living in a vacuum. If they have an apartment, food on the table, health insurance, all the bare necessities, this is no longer good enough if they see their neighbor has significantly more than them. The advent of social media has only amplified this consumerist culture where we judge the success of our own lives based only on what everyone else has and what everyone else is doing rather than based on our own improvements over time or the objective overall improvement in living standards over past generations. The definition of poverty in the 1950s is not even close to how people would define it now. Can’t afford the newest iPhone, laptop, high speed internet and streaming service subscriptions with a gym membership and daily Starbucks? Omg I’m in poverty, redistribute the wealth!!

Climate change: yep, this is one area GOP basically turn a blind eye to. Can’t really argue with that... someone needs to come up with a middle ground to our current voting options of “do nothing” or “100 trillion dollar green new deal”

Healthcare: Current GOP also believe healthcare is broken. Their attempts to fix it focus on restructuring of private insurance and pharmaceutical industries, whereas most current candidates on the left want to eradicate private insurance entirely and have Medicare for all. As usual, the sweet spot is probably a compromise somewhere in the middle but of course we are forced to choose between two extremes.

Student loans: Not so sure the conservative belief is that this isn’t a problem so much as that it is a personal choice and therefore a personal responsibility to manage rather than a government responsibility. Student debt relief can be obtained by being more responsible with not taking out huge loans to enrol in useless degrees that will never allow you to repay. Leftist approach is the opposite, nobody should be responsible for their own choices of taking out huge loans, all debt is forgiven by taxpayers so that anyone can take any degree they want with all the grants they need and no accountability for anything.

My take is in the middle... the government should be more stingy and selective about who gets approved for what amounts of student loans not only based on economic need but on the prospects of the degree being enrolled in to enable the person to realistically pay back those loans. The ubiquity of instant approval on massive student loans is what emboldened universities to inflate tuition to insurmountable levels in the first place. They know that student loans big enough to cover whatever they decide to charge are just being handed out like candy and students have no sense of how much debt this actually is when they are bright eyed and bushy tailed at the age of 18, so of course will never see it as an irresponsible burden to take on. Cracking down on student loans will force universities to lower their tuitions to more reasonable levels. I’d also be in favor of the government capping tuition levels on any university that accepts public funds or subsidies in order to expedite the rebalancing of this loan to tuition ratio.

Guns: GOP argues it’s primarily a mental health issue, DNC argues ubiquity of high powered guns are the problem. Definitely truth in both, one party is just focusing on the motive whereas the other party is focusing on the means... and again there should be a common sense middle ground between “anybody should be able to acquire any gun at any time!” And “we are taking all your AR rifles away!”. Maybe no more loopholes to avoid background checks through private sales or gun shows, psychiatric history red flag exceptions etc. I do tend to believe mental health is the primary cause; obviously it’s people who decide to shoot other people not the guns. However, managing the means to enact these antisocial fantasies is more realistic than thinking you will actually cure antisocial personality disorders with more mental health funding. The question is how to do it effectively without infringing on the rights of mentally healthy law abiding citizens.

 

[BLADEMDA]

That last post used to be how the Senate managed to get things done. The two sides would work together and try to forge compromise. I think those days over due to hyper-partisanship in Washginton.

 

[Mikkel]

Climate change: yep, this is one area GOP basically turn a blind eye to. Can’t really argue with that... someone needs to come up with a middle ground to our current voting options of “do nothing” or “100 trillion dollar green new deal”

Read the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein. It'll change how you think about energy in the world and thus global warming

 

[PainDrain]

Read the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein. It'll change how you think about energy in the world and thus global warming

So you are taking the advice of a libertarian who runs a for profit think tank over science?

 

[Mikkel]

So you are taking the advice of a libertarian who runs a for profit think tank over science?

So... looks like you didn't read his book which cites actual science research... 🤣

 

[Twiggidy]

I will toss this little nugget into this thread in that it’s a thread full of doctors (as far as we know) which really gives no indication of the pulse of the nation. Most of the replies are “liberal” bashing which isn’t surprising when the forum is full of six figure upper tax bracket salaries.

 

[PainDrain]

I’ll tell you what. You send me the book and I will read it. PM me and I will give you the address. Also, let’s look at some of his “science”. Apparently he believes we are feeding plants with our increased release of CO2. Only problem is it appears plants don’t like the increased food according to SCIENTISTS; not half-@ssed philosophers who are paid by the oil industry (Amazon rainforest ability to soak up carbon dioxide is falling). And this is just one of his half-@ssed arguments which is based, not on science, but philosophy.

 

[Mikkel]

I’ll tell you what. You send me the book and I will read it. PM me and I will give you the address. Also, let’s look at some of his “science”. Apparently he believes we are feeding plants with our increased release of CO2. Only problem is it appears plants don’t like the increased food according to SCIENTISTS; not half-@ssed philosophers who are paid by the oil industry (Amazon rainforest ability to soak up carbon dioxide is falling). And this is just one of his half-@ssed arguments which is based, not on science, but philosophy.

Data | The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

You’ve heard that our addiction to fossil fuels is destroying our planet and our lives. Yet by every measure of human well-being life has been getting better and better. This book explains why humanity’s use of fossil fuels is actually a healthy, moral choice.

www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com

 

[aafisahar]

I’ll tell you what. You send me the book and I will read it. PM me and I will give you the address. Also, let’s look at some of his “science”. Apparently he believes we are feeding plants with our increased release of CO2. Only problem is it appears plants don’t like the increased food according to SCIENTISTS; not half-@ssed philosophers who are paid by the oil industry (Amazon rainforest ability to soak up carbon dioxide is falling). And this is just one of his half-@ssed arguments which is based, not on science, but philosophy.

maybe they should have paid more attention in biochemistry. There's a concentration of CO2 for which photosynthesis works. At high CO2 concentrations (eg >500ppm), photosynthesis actually stops for many C3 plants. Anyone who argues that increased CO2 = more plant growth is spouting 3rd grade logic; the truth is more nuanced than that.

 

[Mikkel]

maybe they should have paid more attention in biochemistry. There's a concentration of CO2 for which photosynthesis works. At high CO2 concentrations (eg >500ppm), photosynthesis actually stops for many C3 plants. Anyone who argues that increased CO2 = more plant growth is spouting 3rd grade logic; the truth is more nuanced than that.