2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Farnhamia]

To be fair, considering that the second the US looks away from Israel, its neighbors instantly attempt to gangbang it...

I don’t think they can turn away from Israel without a guaranteed genocide.

Yeah, we can't. That goes both ways mind you.

You'll only vote for people who have not changed their positions since the seventh grade?

Hardly a fair comparison. Flip-flopping extensively rapidly without a major life incident or incident that realistically should change one's opinion, for popular gain is bad, as it shows a lack of a moral core. Usually denotes sociopathy.

Israel is certainly not without an often concerning amount of flaws of its own, so I do agree that suppressing all anti-Zionist criticism is frankly retarded...

That said, there is a reason the US protects Israel to begin with, and that is because every single one of its neighbors want Israel to be wiped off the fucking map at all costs.

It’s also a worthy mention that a few unsavoury folk conceal their anti-Semitic rhetoric by hiding behind the "It’s against Israel, not against the Jews!" excuse.

Exactly.

And what, pray, constitutes "a major life incident or incident that realistically should change one's opinion"? Are we talking about a near-death experience, a death of a close family member? Maybe an apple falling from a tree. It's easy to call someone "flip-floppy," but without providing instances, how can we judge? As for changing one's mind showing a lack or a moral core or denoting sociopathy, that's just ... well, I'd like to see your psychology degree. Had you simply said, "I just don't like Kamala Harris" and left it at that, I would take you more seriously.

[Ism]

To be clear, Omar isn't suggesting we throw Israel to the wolves, she's just saying we should be able to talk about, and criticize, AIPAC, just like we do with other lobbying groups. Which, yeah, we absolutely should.

[Major-Tom]

Harris is too....well, flip-floppy for most. She also comes off to many including me as fake.

You'll only vote for people who have not changed their positions since the seventh grade?

I'm starting to come around to Harris. Sure, she wasn't a great AG, but ehh, I can't be so picky. She's an alright candidate, I'm sure that if elected, she'd be a decent President. Opportunistic and flip-floppy as she arguably may have been, that should be a smaller issue than the absolute lunacy we're seeing out of the current administration.

Also, I still don't have a "top pick" for the primaries. I'm enthused to see the debates, really see what the candidates have to say outside of what they're used to (IE, in a race for President.)

[Page]

I hope Andrew Yang gets to the debate stage so the concept of universal basic income gets mainstream coverage. Naturally, corporate media will launch a propaganda blitzkrieg against the idea - Fox News because of its right-wing agenda, CNN and MSNBC because of their pro-corporate Dem agenda.

Yang is not someone I would actually vote for, while I admire his support for (insufficient) UBI, he has many problematic positions on other issues and besides that he won't win.

Tulsi Gabbard won't win either (and let's be honest, if she became President the neoliberal ruling class and military industrial complex would have her assassinated or brought down by a manufactured scandal), still I hope Tulsi does well and that her anto-interventionist politics shine on the debate stage. Someone needs to be there to challenge the establishment before it succeeds in getting America into Iraq 2.0 in Venezuela. I don't expect Tulsi to become President, but I'd love to see in a cabinet position.

As for Bernie, he can damn well win. I anticipate that he will knock other candidates out of the crowded ring in a similar fashion to what Trump did in the Republican primaries. So Bernie is the one who actually gets my vote in the end, even though I think Gabbard and Yang offer important ideas and I want them to do well.

I strongly dislike Kamala Harris and Amy Kloubuchar, the former for her record as a prosecutor and AG, the latter for having no substance whatsoever, saying jack shit about policy and offering only platitudes. Would I vote for both of them over Trump? Probably, I voted for Hillary even though it sickened me, I've chosen the greater good over my principles in most elections. I have a feeling though that these two will con the people on health care using the bullshit term "universal access." When someone uses those words, it means "My insurance and pharma donors won't let me support single-payer, but don't worry, if you are sick you'll get treatment (you'll be chained to debt for the rest of your life).

[Washington Resistance Army]

UBI is an obnoxiously terrible idea that would bankrupt the entire nation. Even if you cut literally all of our spending on other handouts and welfare and whatnot it wouldn't give you the amount of money you'd need to give everyone even a $100 a year. If you want to start handing out actually worthwhile amounts of money you'd have to drastically up the size of the budget, and the taxes required to do so would kill any administration.

[Page]

UBI is an obnoxiously terrible idea that would bankrupt the entire nation. Even if you cut literally all of our spending on other handouts and welfare and whatnot it wouldn't give you the amount of money you'd need to give everyone even a $100 a year. If you want to start handing out actually worthwhile amounts of money you'd have to drastically up the size of the budget, and the taxes required to do so would kill any administration.

With UBI there is virtually no administration. Unlike with welfare where a sprawling bureaucracy is constantly spending time and money on assessing welfare claims, deciding who is and who is not deserving, checking if people are looking for work, UBI requires only a skeleton crew cause all they're doing is unconditionally handing out money. So there are some huge costs saved right there.

Where to get the rest?

Pulling out of Afghanistan and not involving the US military in regime change adventures and wars in countries that didn't attack us will save trillions over the next decade.

If we ended corporate welfare and made them pay the actual tax rate, there is a whole lot more money. We don't even necessarily have to raise it, in fact we could lower it and still get more if all the subsidies were revoked. As it is, Amazon and General Electric not only pay zero but are net recipients of taxpayer dollars. So all that money we're giving them and all that money they're not giving us will help fund the UBI too.

[Vassenor]

UBI is an obnoxiously terrible idea that would bankrupt the entire nation. Even if you cut literally all of our spending on other handouts and welfare and whatnot it wouldn't give you the amount of money you'd need to give everyone even a $100 a year. If you want to start handing out actually worthwhile amounts of money you'd have to drastically up the size of the budget, and the taxes required to do so would kill any administration.

#taxtherich

[Washington Resistance Army]

UBI is an obnoxiously terrible idea that would bankrupt the entire nation. Even if you cut literally all of our spending on other handouts and welfare and whatnot it wouldn't give you the amount of money you'd need to give everyone even a $100 a year. If you want to start handing out actually worthwhile amounts of money you'd have to drastically up the size of the budget, and the taxes required to do so would kill any administration.

#taxtherich

Hate to break it to you but the rich aren't an infinite piggy bank that can give you trillions per year for free.

Even if we just give out a small 15K a year UBI it would consume literally the entire government budget that currently exists. You would need vast tax hikes across the entire board along with cuts to quite literally everything from the military to foreign aid to science to infrastructure etc to even begin making that viable.

[Uxupox]

UBI is an obnoxiously terrible idea that would bankrupt the entire nation. Even if you cut literally all of our spending on other handouts and welfare and whatnot it wouldn't give you the amount of money you'd need to give everyone even a $100 a year. If you want to start handing out actually worthwhile amounts of money you'd have to drastically up the size of the budget, and the taxes required to do so would kill any administration.

With UBI there is virtually no administration. Unlike with welfare where a sprawling bureaucracy is constantly spending time and money on assessing welfare claims, deciding who is and who is not deserving, checking if people are looking for work, UBI requires only a skeleton crew cause all they're doing is unconditionally handing out money. So there are some huge costs saved right there.

Where to get the rest?

Pulling out of Afghanistan and not involving the US military in regime change adventures and wars in countries that didn't attack us will save trillions over the next decade.

If we ended corporate welfare and made them pay the actual tax rate, there is a whole lot more money. We don't even necessarily have to raise it, in fact we could lower it and still get more if all the subsidies were revoked. As it is, Amazon and General Electric not only pay zero but are net recipients of taxpayer dollars. So all that money we're giving them and all that money they're not giving us will help fund the UBI too.

Wait. Who says that these companies are net recepient of tax dollars because I’ve heard a similar argument about that in New York but that’s hella wrong on how tax incentives work.

[Uxupox]

#taxtherich

Hate to break it to you but the rich aren't an infinite piggy bank that can give you trillions per year for free.

Even if we just give out a small 15K a year UBI it would consume literally the entire government budget that currently exists. You would need vast tax hikes across the entire board along with cuts to quite literally everything from the military to foreign aid to science to infrastructure etc to even begin making that viable.

$15k UBI per adult in the United States basing on the 2008 census gives it ar roughly $ 3.4 T a year. From the 2001 to the 2008 census there was an increase of 21 million adults within the United States. It is estimated that by 2050 that the population within the United States is going to be over 400 million in contrast to the current ~323 million.

[Port Jefferson]

Senator Sherrod Brown will not run in 2020

I still think he would be a good VP option for the potential Democratic Nominee.

I actually thought that Hillary would pick Brown as a running mate in 2016. He would have appealed to the progressives and might have given her a boost in the Great Lakes region.

But, this time....well, it is different. I live in Bellefontaine, Ohio. Ohio is changing and Sherrod Brown isn't. He is as progressive now as he was when he first ran for statewide office back in the early 1980's. In 2018, the Republicans ran a terrible candidate (Jim Renacci) against him. Brown won 53-47. I was really surprised that it was that close. At the same time, the GOP retained control of the statewide offices.

In 2020, I seriously doubt that he could deliver Ohio.

[Port Jefferson]

UBI is an obnoxiously terrible idea that would bankrupt the entire nation. Even if you cut literally all of our spending on other handouts and welfare and whatnot it wouldn't give you the amount of money you'd need to give everyone even a $100 a year. If you want to start handing out actually worthwhile amounts of money you'd have to drastically up the size of the budget, and the taxes required to do so would kill any administration.

#taxtherich

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

[Page]

#taxtherich

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

1) Giving money to the poor is literally the only effective way to end poverty.

2) Millions of workers receive virtually nothing for their work while the owners take almost everything. Working for a company like Amazon or Walmart is like tending to a farm that would die without you and when all is said and done, getting a single potato for yourself. Welfare is pennies compared to the fortunes the owners reap.

3) The ruling class took the bounty that rightfully belongs to the workers who earned it.

4) If ten million dollars sits in an offshore account, nothing is contributed to the economy. If that 10 million dollars is distributed to ten thousand people, all of those people will buy things which grows the economy.

5) Not every single person has to work. If every available job was filled, there would still be hundreds of millions of people without a job. What should they do? Dig holes and fill them back in to earn a paycheck? And what is the point of technology and advancement if not to make our lives easier and let us work less? We should strive to minimize our labor.

[Anarcho capitalist utopia]

Doesn't mean we need to infringe on the 1st amendment to make protest against Israel illegal, of course.

Israel is certainly not without an often concerning amount of flaws of its own, so I do agree that suppressing all anti-Zionist criticism is frankly retarded...

That said, there is a reason the US protects Israel to begin with, and that is because every single one of its neighbors want Israel to be wiped off the fucking map at all costs.

It’s also a worthy mention that a few unsavoury folk conceal their anti-Semitic rhetoric by hiding behind the "It’s against Israel, not against the Jews!" excuse.

No, the reason is that
1, america uses Israel as a ticket into the middle East, so that the neocon wars can profit for oil
2, a certain specific ethnic group of people have taken over the US media, and want America to believe that a certain specific country in the middle East is their 'greatest ally'

[Sougra]

UBI is an obnoxiously terrible idea that would bankrupt the entire nation. Even if you cut literally all of our spending on other handouts and welfare and whatnot it wouldn't give you the amount of money you'd need to give everyone even a $100 a year. If you want to start handing out actually worthwhile amounts of money you'd have to drastically up the size of the budget, and the taxes required to do so would kill any administration.

Well, this was Andrew Yang's defense of UBI and saying that it, in fact, isn't costly, so if you could make an argument against what he himself said, I think that'd be great and really help your argument:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAtyv8NpbFQ

[Washington Resistance Army]

UBI is an obnoxiously terrible idea that would bankrupt the entire nation. Even if you cut literally all of our spending on other handouts and welfare and whatnot it wouldn't give you the amount of money you'd need to give everyone even a $100 a year. If you want to start handing out actually worthwhile amounts of money you'd have to drastically up the size of the budget, and the taxes required to do so would kill any administration.

Well, this was Andrew Yang's defense of UBI and saying that it, in fact, isn't costly, so if you could make an argument against what he himself said, I think that'd be great and really help your argument:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAtyv8NpbFQ

Basic mathematics says he's wrong lol. There's some 250 million adults in the US, giving each of them 10-15 thousand dollars a year would suck up the entire budget as is. We'd need ass tons of money to keep government running while simultaneously funding a UBI and you'd need some serious tax hikes to do that.

[Myrensis]

I'd also like to say that there is a very stark distinction between Israelis and American Jews, and it's not really wise to lump them together, much to AIPAC's chagrin.

To AIPAC and the GOP's chagrin. It's actually almost comical how annoyed they are that the dual loyalty slur isn't true.

We saw it with Obama and we see it with Omar, constant cries of "I just don't understand how Jews can keep voting Democrat when Republicans love Israel so much more!"

[Republic of Turbin]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/politics ... index.html
I’m interested as to what people think of the proposal and if it’s a good idea or a bad one.
What are your thoughts?

[The Huskar Social Union]

Israel is certainly not without an often concerning amount of flaws of its own, so I do agree that suppressing all anti-Zionist criticism is frankly retarded...

That said, there is a reason the US protects Israel to begin with, and that is because every single one of its neighbors want Israel to be wiped off the fucking map at all costs.

It’s also a worthy mention that a few unsavoury folk conceal their anti-Semitic rhetoric by hiding behind the "It’s against Israel, not against the Jews!" excuse.

No, the reason is that
1, america uses Israel as a ticket into the middle East, so that the neocon wars can profit for oil
2, a certain specific ethnic group of people have taken over the US media, and want America to believe that a certain specific country in the middle East is their 'greatest ally'

Pull the other its got bells on.

[Valrifell]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/politics/elizabeth-warren-amazon-google-facebook/index.html
I’m interested as to what people think of the proposal and if it’s a good idea or a bad one.
What are your thoughts?

Trust busting can't be bad.

[Telconi]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/politics/elizabeth-warren-amazon-google-facebook/index.html
I’m interested as to what people think of the proposal and if it’s a good idea or a bad one.
What are your thoughts?

Trust busting can't be bad.

*Cries in bell system*

[Washington Resistance Army]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/politics/elizabeth-warren-amazon-google-facebook/index.html
I’m interested as to what people think of the proposal and if it’s a good idea or a bad one.
What are your thoughts?

I don't really support breaking up Amazon or Facebook but I could get behind doing it to Google depending on the arguments made for it.

[Zurkerx]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/politics/elizabeth-warren-amazon-google-facebook/index.html
I’m interested as to what people think of the proposal and if it’s a good idea or a bad one.
What are your thoughts?

I don't really support breaking up Amazon or Facebook but I could get behind doing it to Google depending on the arguments made for it.

So, why for Google but not Facebook or Amazon? I'm not one that supports the government breaking up businesses unless they become a monopoly, but that seems a bit weird you support breaking up one but not the other two. Explain?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I don't really support breaking up Amazon or Facebook but I could get behind doing it to Google depending on the arguments made for it.

So, why for Google but not Facebook or Amazon? I'm not one that supports the government breaking up businesses unless they become a monopoly, but that seems a bit weird you support breaking up one but not the other two. Explain?

I just see Google as much more fitting the monopoly title than Amazon or Facebook tbh

[Valrifell]

So, why for Google but not Facebook or Amazon? I'm not one that supports the government breaking up businesses unless they become a monopoly, but that seems a bit weird you support breaking up one but not the other two. Explain?

I just see Google as much more fitting the monopoly title than Amazon or Facebook tbh

That's because Google plasters their brand on everything whereas Amazon and Facebook are more subtle about it.