Jump to content

Don't Waste your Vote on Bernie Sanders


Recommended Posts

On 1/8/2020 at 9:53 AM, Renegade said:

  Looking at all the candidates, I find Joe Biden the most 'normal' choice available.  Even though many of the others have great ideas and impressive personal characteristics, and I would support them ahead of Trump, I keep coming back to Joe as the best (not perfect) choice.   In this thread, I'm laying out why I didn't pick Bernie.

I take it you have decided to vote for Biden. Do you think he will win your state's primary? Is Bloomberg on the ballot in your state?

 

I look forward to your thread: "The great ideas, and impressive personal characteristics of Democratic candidates I would support ahead of Trump"

 

Here is where we can agree:

9 hours ago, Renegade said:

I know that not everyone is doing okay, and I do care.  

I want a strong safety net to help those who haven't prospered.  

Capitalism is the engine that creates wealth we can redistribute to those in need.

Could you expand upon your wealth redistribution plan?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't always agree with Comedienne Sam Bee, but: “Jesus Christ! The only way they could be trying harder to get them to fight is if they personally oiled up these senior citizens and threw them

I am neither a fisherman, nor a fish.   It's well known that super delegates have higher intelligence, and morals than us mere mortals.   Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile: "The rig

I take it you disagree with that particular super delegate. Maybe they are not so smart after all.   Yes, that private organization has decided new rules were needed regarding super delega

10 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

I take it you have decided to vote for Biden. Do you think he will win your state's primary? Is Bloomberg on the ballot in your state?

 

I look forward to your thread: "The great ideas, and impressive personal characteristics of Democratic candidates I would support ahead of Trump"

 

Here is where we can agree:

Could you expand upon your wealth redistribution plan?

 

HE won't be able to because he knows that Biden is the wrong choice, but he won't admit that ever because he loves establishment politics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, zkyllonen8 said:

IF we really want to clean the environment up we need to start somewhere and slowly phasing out our dependence on coal would be the best option. 

 

We could phase out coal twice as fast if we aren't simultaneously trying to phase out nuclear.

 

13 hours ago, rrober49 said:

we can recoup 20% sorta easy by rebuilding our grid and it is needed 

 

I understand why it's needed.  Wind and solar tend to be concentrated in regions far from where the power is consumed and our current power grid doesn't support that kind of inter-regional transfer.  But, how does that "recoup 20% easy"?   Long distance transmission of power results in additional 'leakage'.  Nuclear power plants are actually located relatively close to where the power is used. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

I take it you have decided to vote for Biden. Do you think he will win your state's primary? Is Bloomberg on the ballot in your state?

 

I look forward to your thread: "The great ideas, and impressive personal characteristics of Democratic candidates I would support ahead of Trump"

 

Here is where we can agree:

Could you expand upon your wealth redistribution plan?

 

Yes, Biden will win my state's primary. 

 

Bloomberg will probably be on my ballot, but I don't know that for a fact.

 

Normally, I don't go negative on a person (Bernie) like I have in this thread.  I prefer to take things one issue at a time.  There's actually a lot about him (sincerity, commitment) that I like.  But, I got ticked off when someone started an attack thread on Biden.   

 

I don't have a 'plan', but I really like Yang's Freedom Dividend.  If I get some time, I'll think about starting a thread with my thoughts on wealth redistribution.  Generally, I'm for progressive tax rates and high inheritance taxes with the proceeds distributed like Yang has proposed.

 

13 hours ago, zkyllonen8 said:

HE won't be able to because he knows that Biden is the wrong choice, but he won't admit that ever because he loves establishment politics. 

 

I have to admit that Biden is not my ideal candidate (he's been weak on China and he votes against gun owners most of the time, for examples).   But, here is what comes to mind when I consider why I chose him.

 

Experience.  No candidate matches his depth and breadth of experience.  In particular, his 8 years as VP have prepared him for the difficulties ahead.  Better than any other candidate, he will be ready to actually have an administration up and running on day one.

 

Bipartisanship.  Many here see this as a weakness or fault, but I don't.  Biden has shown that he can work with the Republicans if it means he can get something done for the people.  I contrast that with Bernie who says he will get medicare for all and shut down private insurance....or nothing.  He says he won't compromise no matter what.  Which do you think is most likely?  We'll get nothing.

 

Capitalism.  This nation was built by capitalism.  It's the engine that produces wealth for socialist policies to share.  If we want to continue to grow the economy so we can have even more to share in the future, we can't kill off the entrepreneurial capitalism in our economy.  We need to slowly grow our social programs in tandem with the overall economy.  Socialism has some catching up to do, but nothing near what Bernie is proposing.  Biden want's to fix capitalism, not destroy it.

 

Electability.  Biden is by far the most likely to beat Trump.  Are you willing to risk letting Trump appoint 4 more years of judges?  

 

Values.  I'm going to lump a lot of different things here that are very important, but don't really set him apart from any of the other Democratic candidates.  These are 'must have' values, but I need to mention them or someone will think I don't consider them important.   Supports:  racial equality, humane treatment of immigrants, LGBTQ rights, equal pay for women, reproductive rights, action on climate change, and criminal justice reform.   There's no way I'm not leaving something out.  I apologize in advance.  I realize that he has come to some of these positions rather recently.  That's not something I hold against him.  I had to learn some of these values myself.

 

Trade.  He doesn't get a perfect score, but he has shown some support for free trade in the past.  Bernie, on the other hand, seems even more protectionist than Trump.

 

Expand ACA.  Will build on and improve Obama's plan.  Will get more and better healthcare for Americans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The house is burning down, and everyone here (myself included) is arguing over who should rescue the bedsheets.

 

These one candidate to support: the nominee. Tearing down one or another gives ammunition to the incumbent and his gang of thugs and ratf*¢kers.

 

Even Marianne Wilkinson would be an improvement, and she's a nut.

 

Even Bloomberg would be an improvement, and he's no liberal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 More than mere fairness is at stake here. Donald Trump represents a grave danger to the United States and the world. His initiatives on global warming and immigration, his economic and foreignpolicies and his personal corruption are all existential threats to the survival of the free world, as well as severe moral crises for our country.

 

https://www.salon.com/2019/11/24/quit-saying-that-bernie-sanders-cant-win-he-may-be-the-most-electable-democrat-running-in-2020/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

or that matter, Sanders' ideas aren't even that radical in the first place; they're basically an updated version of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, which got him elected four times. https://www.salon.com/2019/11/24/quit-saying-that-bernie-sanders-cant-win-he-may-be-the-most-electable-democrat-running-in-2020/

 

 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Sanders has consistently led Trump in head-to-head polling in battleground states, and thus has a plausible Electoral College strategy. As a resident of one such state, Pennsylvania, I encounter this daily, at least on an anecdotal level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Renegade said:

I understand why it's needed.  Wind and solar tend to be concentrated in regions far from where the power is consumed and our current power grid doesn't support that kind of inter-regional transfer.  But, how does that "recoup 20% easy"?   Long distance transmission of power results in additional 'leakage'.  Nuclear power plants are actually located relatively close to where the power is used. 

 

 we lose 40% of electricity  because its old outdated and poorly planned  grid,  thermal and solar had nothing to do with boosting our power output by 20% . Putting a new power plant closer to your house wont fix the outdated  crap they try and pump all that power through

 and you will be paying and managing  the trash from it we just made now for thousands of years to come

 

 so we could of never made trash we had to pay people to manage for thousands of years 

and we have 20% more energy for sale on the market 

plus all the savings from the ever expanding Government oversight cost on federal and state level we never had to manage

by rebuilding the grid over a nuclear power plant closer to home

 

   not having more nuclear power plants solves long term burdens we never needed to inherit or waist time on

  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, laripu said:

The house is burning down, and everyone here (myself included) is arguing over who should rescue the bedsheets.

 

Not exactly.  Some folks want to blow the house up instead of putting out the fire.  I get your point, but I have so much more material!  Maybe I should make each point a separate thread like some people do?  

 

Nah...  I don't want to be like them.   You are right.   I will shut up.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Renegade said:

Nah...  I don't want to be like them.   You are right.   I will shut up.  

 

Don't shut up!

 

You're not someone that wants to divide. Unifying voices are good and necessary.

 

There are crumbling edges around Republican support for Trump. Let's encourage the crumbling rather than roasting the flesh of the resistance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, laripu said:

Unifying voices are good and necessary.

 

Let me expand on that. If someone wants to divide a team, what would they do? Magnify differences, of course, and get people riled up about them. Racial differences are traditional. Minor political differences can be blown up into moral issues, enen though they aren't. The biggest way to alienate team members is to say: - if I don't get my way, I'm taking my bat and ball and going home.

 

That's how. Why - that's another issue, but it was done on Facebook in the last election so you can guess why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2020 at 9:19 AM, Renegade said:

 

 

 

#1, Bernie supported Chavez in Venezuela.  "These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"

 First, I'm not sure you are aware of the organization of american states, or the OAS, which in the last fifty years has crippled much of South and Central America. It's right-wing nonsense that has installed authoritarian hit men and collapsed any meaningful democracy. Yes, while it's very true that Venezuela is in peril under Nicolas Maduro, please don't blame the whole thing on him. The US has placed heavy economic barriers on Venezuela. The US sponsored OAS for years has crippled growth in the region. I don't know if you remember the brutal US backed Somosa family or not or how easy it seems to cast the narrative regarding hegemonic control, but it is certainly something that Bernie Sanders has had a careful eye upon. And to be short, the truth is not pretty. http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/the-reality-behind-trump-s-coalition-for-regime-change-in-venezuela

Have you yourself ever wondered why a bountiful countryside filled with rich resources seems to stay continuously corrupted? I guess the US is so afraid of socialism that it needs to create authoritarian dictatorships, or is it the simple need to exploit poor people? 

 

Quote

 

#2, Bernie wants to forgive all student loans, even for the children of 1%'ers

 

Cost = $1.6 trillion.  Maybe that doesn't look like much when your climate change proposal costs $16 trillion and your healthcare plan costs $34 trillion (I'm sure I'll have more on those in future posts) but, consider that the whole federal budget (including entitlements and defense) is only about $4 trillion!  Can you read those numbers and really believe Bernie has the slightest clue about economics?   Plus, it's a regressive policy to give unearned free money to people who have college degrees and high-paying jobs.  This is an issue that will help Republicans pull away blue-collar Democrats.

 

 

The sad thing is, Bernie's supporters won't see any of this as a problem.  They'll read numbers 1 and 2 (and all the rest) and say "So what?  If you're not on board with that, you're not a true liberal/democrat/progressive".   News flash...general elections aren't restricted to 'true progressives'.  Bernie's losing positions will hurt the whole party with swing voters in swing states in November.  Voters in the Democratic primaries should take this into consideration before casting their vote for Bernie.   

 Where did you get the cost figure? Over what amount of time, and what percentage of GDP? You don't tell us how much we spend now, how much debt is compiled, or how much we spend per year now with a system that doesn't come anywhere close to providing decent healthcare to all citizens. You don't even say what the percentage of GDP it entails, and whether or not one single payer system could amount to a more efficient way of insuring people. Not to mention how we pay for drug discovery. 

 

You Say by mathematics, I have to ask, where do you get your numbers?

 

Peace!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, laripu said:

From the article:

"Elizabeth Warren is a very good friend of mine, we have worked together in the Senate for years, Elizabeth Warren and I will continue to work together, we will debate the issues, no one is gonna trash Elizabeth Warren," he said, adding that his campaign has "hundreds of employees" and "people sometimes say things that they shouldn't. But you heard me for months, I have never said a negative word about Elizabeth Warren who is a friend of mine. We have differences on issues, that's what campaigning is about. But no one is gonna be attacking Elizabeth."

1 hour ago, laripu said:

 

Since he's not a real Democrat, and not a team player, he will not be able to compromise to get things done.

 

Is  Bloomberg a real Democrat?

 

It's accurate to say that Sanders (along with Angus King) is registered as Independent (the longest serving Independent in U.S. congressional history), but is part of the Democratic caucus, voting with the party over 90 percent of the time. His caucusing with the Democrats gave them a 51–49 majority in the Senate during the 110th Congress in 2007–08. The Democrats needed 51 seats to control the Senate because VP Cheney would have broken any tie in favor of the Republicans.  A founding member of the Congressional Progressive caucus has grown to the 2nd largest caucus within the Democratic party, with 98 members. All real Democrats.

 

Contrast that to 'real Democrat' Joe Manchin, who opposed the energy policies of President Obama, voted against cloture for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", voted to remove federal funding for Planned Parenthood, and voted to confirm most of Trump's cabinet and judicial appointees, including Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In February 2018, Congressional Quarterly published a study finding that Manchin had voted with Trump's position 71% of the time.

 

Having said that, I do have concerns that Sanders will have extreme difficulty compromising, and therefore difficulty uniting the party. I also have concerns with Biden, and Bloomberg, but as Renegade pointed out at the top of this thread:  "Moderates tend to be the 'nice guys' who seek common ground". Compromise is indeed their claim to fame. Republicans cannot hold a candle to moderates in this regard. This progressive voter would respectfully ask that moderate candidates consider using those skills to seek common ground with progressives, rather than with the current crop of Republicans.

 

In the article, Sen Warren is saying exactly the right thing:...

Warren added that Democrats "need to unite our party."

"We cannot nominate someone who takes big chunks of the Democratic Coalition for granted," she added. "We need someone who will bring our party together. We need someone who will excite every part of the Democratic Party, someone who will be there. Someone that every Democrat can believe in."

As a progressive, Sanders, Warren, and possibly Yang align most with my views. I have differing concerns about each.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

In the article, Sen Warren is saying exactly the right thing:...

 

I like her. She's smart, and although she's old, she demonstrates much more energy than Biden or Sanders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, laripu said:

 

Absolutely not, and Bloomberg should not be the Democratic nominee.

 

 

They say he's spent over $200 million so far.  During the football games yesterday, I must have seen the same Bloomberg commercial 20 times and we don't normally see campaign ads here this early.

 

He doesn't have even a sliver of a chance at the Democratic nomination.    I think he's just trying to lay the groundwork for a 3rd party run.  By campaigning as a Democrat, he's trying to blur the public's memory of his Republican past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

#5  Bernie opposes the USMCA

 

The House of Representatives voted 385 to 41 in favor of the revised trade agreement with Mexico and Canada after Democrats won changes to labor, environment, enforcement, and pharmaceutical provisions.    This agreement is now supported by organized labor unions...but not Bernie Sanders.

 

Bernie won't support it because the positive changes don't go far enough.  It's not perfect, so he's against it.  

 

I could go into the specifics of the bill but, given its overwhelming bipartisan support, that shouldn't be necessary.  Instead, think about what a it would be like to have this man as President.  Would he veto every bill that comes to him unless it's perfect?  Imagine that a Democratic majority sends him a climate change bill...and he vetoes it because it doesn't go far enough.  They could send him a major medicare expansion bill and he'd veto it because it doesn't eliminate private insurance. 

 

This unwillingness to compromise might work in a dictatorship, but not in a government with separation of powers and not in international agreements where other nations have their own agendas and constituencies.  If Bernie insists on 'my way or nothing', he will mostly get nothing whether it's in negotiation with foreign governments or our own Congress.

 

Voltaire: “The best is the enemy of the good.”

Confucius: "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without."

Shakespeare: “Striving to better, oft we mar what's well.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade said:

 

Voltaire: “The best is the enemy of the good.”

Putting Voltaire's quote into proper context, the next three lines read:

 

"......Not that we cannot grow in wisdom;
In the goodness of our soul, in talents, in knowledge/science;
We should search the better in those fields."

 


    Dans ses écrits, un sage Italien [In his writings, an Italian sage]

    Dit que le mieux est l’ennemi du bien ; [Says that the better is the enemy of the good;]

    Non qu’on ne puisse augmenter en prudence, [Not that we cannot grow in wisdom,]

    En bonté d’âme, en talents, en science ; [In the goodness of our soul, in talents, in knowledge/science;]

    Cherchons le mieux sur ces chapitres-là ; [We should search the better in those fields;]

    Partout ailleurs évitons la chimère. [Everywhere else, we should avoid that chimera.]

    Dans son état, heureux qui peut se plaire, [In his state, that man is happy who is content with himself,]

    Vivre à sa place, et garder ce qu’il a ! [Knows his place (live at his place), and protects what he has!]

 

  "The best is the enemy of the good" doesn't necessarily imply that "the good is the enemy of the best". You should not assume that 'enemy' is symmetric. I.e., if a is an enemy of b, then b is an enemy of a. That's not necessarily true. Being someone's enemy is often reciprocal, but not necessarily so. In any case, if one party is called an "enemy", emphasis lies on that party's ill will.

The better harms the good, but we aren't told whether the good harms the better as well.

 

My belief is that the good is always replaced by the better. Otherwise, we should all go back to using dial-up modems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade said:

This unwillingness to compromise might work in a dictatorship, but not in a government with separation of powers and not in international agreements where other nations have their own agendas and constituencies.  If Bernie insists on 'my way or nothing', he will mostly get nothing whether it's in negotiation with foreign governments or our own Congress.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

1 hour ago, Renegade said:

The House of Representatives voted 385 to 41 in favor of the revised trade agreement with Mexico and Canada after Democrats won changes to labor, environment, enforcement, and pharmaceutical provisions.    This agreement is now supported by organized labor unions...but not Bernie Sanders.

 

Bernie won't support it because the positive changes don't go far enough.  It's not perfect, so he's against it.  

 

There isn't the opportunity for perfect: if you sculpted the absolute best terms for American workers and companies, then Mexico and Canada would tell us to shove it because the perfect for us would be crap for them. Therefore no treaty.

 

The whole point of a global trade deal is to maximize efficiency and minimize inefficiency.  Everyone benefits from lower prices. Inevitably that leads to inequality because labor isn't equal... but in time that ends up being equal anyway as standards of living rise.

 

What are the alternatives?

  • To use the military to keep Mexico a poor tributary state forever? That will drive Mexico to form alliances with countries that will treat them fairly. China?
  • To refuse to buy anything manufactured from Canada?  No problem for them. They'll just sell both manufactured goods and resources to China. (As an example, when it looked like the Keystone Pipeline System wasn't going to be built, Canada developed alternate routes to British Columbia, from which the ship to China.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

My belief is that the good is always replaced by the better. Otherwise, we should all go back to using dial-up modems.

 

USMCA is a step forward, not back.

 

My point is that, in the 1980's, you take dial-up modems and say 'thank you!' because they were good.  You don't refuse them, and spend decades without a connection, just because you know gigabit LTE will be better.  Take the good while you work on better.  There will always be better.  At some point, you have to freeze the design and send it to production, otherwise you never leave the drawing board and nothing gets accomplished.

 

Bernie should support clear progress like the USMCA.   

 

But, that's not his personality.  He's a revolutionary.  He's an inspirational visionary.  He will always be advocating for the next step; demanding something 'even better'; never satisfied.  That, and his passion, helped him move the whole national debate.  But, it doesn't mean he would be a good President.  He doesn't operate in the realm of what is actually possible here and now.  I'm not sure he even knows where it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Renegade said:

 

USMCA is a step forward, not back.

 

My point is that, in the 1980's, you take dial-up modems and say 'thank you!' because they were good.  You don't refuse them, and spend decades without a connection, just because you know gigabit LTE will be better.  Take the good while you work on better.  There will always be better.  At some point, you have to freeze the design and send it to production, otherwise you never leave the drawing board and nothing gets accomplished.

 

I was referring to Voltaire, not Bernie. The good is only good until better comes along. I did use dial-up in the 80's. I can't remember whether I said 'thank you!', but I was generally satisfied, because they were good. I started out from 300baud, then 1200, then 2800, then 9600, then 56K. My profession required me to be on the bleeding edge back then. Each time, good became old, and better became the new good.

 

By definition, "better" is always better than "good". Good may have been better at one time, but it's time has passed.

 

Of course we are both sidestepping the fact that words like 'good', and 'better' can be very subjective.

 

When I say 'better', I mean demonstrably proven to be superior, not just newer.

 

I listen to vinyl records through a 1970's vintage McIntosh Tube Amplifier. Nothing 'better' has been proven to me.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, laripu said:

There isn't the opportunity for perfect: if you sculpted the absolute best terms for American workers and companies, then Mexico and Canada would tell us to shove it because the perfect for us would be crap for them. Therefore no treaty.

Good point. I agree.

 

1 hour ago, laripu said:

The whole point of a global trade deal is to maximize efficiency and minimize inefficiency.  Everyone benefits from lower prices.

Agreed. I'm still with you. I would only quibble about trade being used for other purposes, such as trade restrictions on Iran, or possibly climate change leverage with China.

 

1 hour ago, laripu said:

Inevitably that leads to inequality because labor isn't equal... but in time that ends up being equal anyway as standards of living rise.

It's that 'leading to inequality' part I'm have trouble with, but I still generally agree with your points.

 

I have become agnostic on these trade issues. Assuming these deals are fair to the majority of Americans, and fair to workers in other countries, I have no real heartburn.

There are multiple ways to address inequality. Using trade as a tool to accomplish this goal is suspect.

If the goal is to rise the standard of living for workers, (especially low income workers), the solution lies within the tax codes, antitrust, and minimum wage laws in our own country.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2020 at 9:45 AM, Renegade said:

 

Yes, Biden will win my state's primary. 

 

Bloomberg will probably be on my ballot, but I don't know that for a fact.

 

Normally, I don't go negative on a person (Bernie) like I have in this thread.  I prefer to take things one issue at a time.  There's actually a lot about him (sincerity, commitment) that I like.  But, I got ticked off when someone started an attack thread on Biden.   

 

I don't have a 'plan', but I really like Yang's Freedom Dividend.  If I get some time, I'll think about starting a thread with my thoughts on wealth redistribution.  Generally, I'm for progressive tax rates and high inheritance taxes with the proceeds distributed like Yang has proposed.

 

 

I have to admit that Biden is not my ideal candidate (he's been weak on China and he votes against gun owners most of the time, for examples).   But, here is what comes to mind when I consider why I chose him.

 

Experience.  No candidate matches his depth and breadth of experience.  In particular, his 8 years as VP have prepared him for the difficulties ahead.  Better than any other candidate, he will be ready to actually have an administration up and running on day one.

 

Bipartisanship.  Many here see this as a weakness or fault, but I don't.  Biden has shown that he can work with the Republicans if it means he can get something done for the people.  I contrast that with Bernie who says he will get medicare for all and shut down private insurance....or nothing.  He says he won't compromise no matter what.  Which do you think is most likely?  We'll get nothing.

 

Capitalism.  This nation was built by capitalism.  It's the engine that produces wealth for socialist policies to share.  If we want to continue to grow the economy so we can have even more to share in the future, we can't kill off the entrepreneurial capitalism in our economy.  We need to slowly grow our social programs in tandem with the overall economy.  Socialism has some catching up to do, but nothing near what Bernie is proposing.  Biden want's to fix capitalism, not destroy it.

 

Electability.  Biden is by far the most likely to beat Trump.  Are you willing to risk letting Trump appoint 4 more years of judges?  

 

Values.  I'm going to lump a lot of different things here that are very important, but don't really set him apart from any of the other Democratic candidates.  These are 'must have' values, but I need to mention them or someone will think I don't consider them important.   Supports:  racial equality, humane treatment of immigrants, LGBTQ rights, equal pay for women, reproductive rights, action on climate change, and criminal justice reform.   There's no way I'm not leaving something out.  I apologize in advance.  I realize that he has come to some of these positions rather recently.  That's not something I hold against him.  I had to learn some of these values myself.

 

Trade.  He doesn't get a perfect score, but he has shown some support for free trade in the past.  Bernie, on the other hand, seems even more protectionist than Trump.

 

Expand ACA.  Will build on and improve Obama's plan.  Will get more and better healthcare for Americans.

 

I have a few problems with some of your points. 

 

Elect-ability- This is a myth spun by the corporate media that they want you to believe. I mean come on your telling me a candidate that can barely hold together a train of thought is more electable than someone that has been fighting for 40 years about the same issues. Plus Biden will get killed on the Debate Stage by Trump in many different ways. 

 

Bipartisanship- I don't dislike this trait at all but he has stated that he would not mind a republican running mate.... Jesus Christ democrats have literally been getting ran over by Republicans for the last Decade and a half but no lets put one on our national ticket to draw voters from the other side. 

 

 

The only way someone is winning this race is by getting the non-voters and independents on their side, which IMO Joe will not be able to do, all he has stated is that he is a Republican Lite of some sort, we need someone that will actually for once in Washington Represent us and not just the People on Top and there Friends on Wall Street. Joe Biden was the one who pushed the Bankruptcy bill through the Senate..... We also need someone that will not put us through countless wars just like Joe Biden did in 1999 with the Iraq War he was calling for us to get the WMD out of Saddam's Hands 4 Years before bush mentioned anything of it. So yes these are the reasons why Joe Biden should not be the nominee for the Democrats in 2020. 

 

I will say it again BERNIE 2020! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

It's that 'leading to inequality' part I'm have trouble with, but I still generally agree with your points.

 

I wasn't clear. What I said was discomboobulated. What I meant was that when a trade deal is in place that maximizes efficiency for the members, workers and businesses in one country will lose out if they weren't efficient. That can be problematic if it was a whole protected industry.

 

Example. Country A does not allow imports of widgetX.  They make a free trade deal with Country B, which produces widgetX efficiently at half the cost.  Workers who produced widgetX in A are thrown out of work and factories close. But maybe B is crap at producing ThingY, and A is good at it. In that case efficiencies, layoffs and closures are reversed.

 

On the one hand, there is suffering on both countries for the workers that are displaced.  On the other hand, going forward, things work the way they should. Protectionism makes a country that always gets worse for everyone.  Free trade hurts at first, but lets the market fix itself.

 

Instead of "inequality" I should have said "job losses" and closures.  Those are bad, but the alternative is protectionism forever.  That's worse.  There should be retraining, unemployment insurance for displaced workers and early retirement where appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

I listen to vinyl records through a 1970's vintage McIntosh Tube Amplifier. Nothing 'better' has been proven to me.

 

Well that was fantastic in its time. Magneplanar speakers with a McIntosh amp, and a person could even get to like operatic sopranos.

 

But CDs don't have a problem with dust, and they have better dynamic range. Plus they support surround sound. As mixers and producers have gotten better at making them, I think they've exceeded LPs, especially worn-out LPs produced with recycled vinyl.  Have you ever heard of these laser LP readers?  http://www.elpj.com/ They cost a fortune, but you have a McIntosh... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...