2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Valrifell]

But you trust poor people like AOC to not enrich themselves via use of office?

AOC comes from the absolute bottom rung of society -- Schultz comes from the absolute top. There's no difference between them and their intentions and any ban on wealth is outright discrimination.

AOC most definitely didn't come from the bottom rung of society. Her dad was an architect who founded a firm that made several hundred thousand dollars a year and iirc she lived in a suburb where the average home sold for nearly a million.

Obviously openly admitting that wouldn't look good cuz she's trying to be a pretend socialist but she certainly wasn't in hardcore poverty.

Socialists don't have to be poor. What do I even call this? Reverse-gatekeeping?

[Genivaria]

Exactly, that is the problem.

People who believe that are uneducated in basic facts and how politics works, and seem to lack understanding of economics and fundamental concepts, all the while claiming those who believe in those vaguely left of center beliefs lack the same knowledge they ironically themselves lack.

They project.

The Republican Party I feel are more Socialist than they realize. Trump is not a socialist, but his policies are similar to the ideas of socialism, yet helping the wealthy. Hard to explain and it's a very weird mix. It's akin to Fascism in how it views the world and it's problems without being outright Fascist.

So he's a socialist and a nationalist? Hmmm... what do we call that?

*grumbles goddamn fucking Nazis ruined the name*

[Washington Resistance Army]

Exactly, that is the problem.

People who believe that are uneducated in basic facts and how politics works, and seem to lack understanding of economics and fundamental concepts, all the while claiming those who believe in those vaguely left of center beliefs lack the same knowledge they ironically themselves lack.

They project.

The Republican Party I feel are more Socialist than they realize. Trump is not a socialist, but his policies are similar to the ideas of socialism, yet helping the wealthy. Hard to explain and it's a very weird mix. It's akin to Fascism in how it views the world and it's problems without being outright Fascist.

So he's a socialist and a nationalist? Hmmm... what do we call that?

Literally anything because there's nothing inherent to the idea of socialism that also negates nationalism lol

[Valrifell]

I don't trust them to not exclusively work in their self interest.

But you trust poor people like AOC to not enrich themselves via use of office?

AOC comes from the absolute bottom rung of society -- Schultz comes from the absolute top. There's no difference between them and their intentions and any ban on wealth is outright discrimination.

I don't trust most politicians to not enrich themselves, frankly, but millionaires in particular because they're pretty used to exploitation for personal gain, not everyone is.

The "they're just the same lol" is the exact ill-conceived argument I'd expect from you, so I'll just leave that there.

[Trumptonium1]

...there's no state breakdown

Iowa poll from 31 January - 1 February shows Trump would win +1 in a head-to-head with Sanders with the exact same numbers as the Change Research nationwide poll (46-48%) so it's still not exactly rosy for Dems.

43% of the vote, depending on how you divide it up could win an EC vote.

Ohio, Pennsylvania and, Wisconsin, states that Trump won, now have a negative approval rating of him now.

But like I said, way too early to tell right now.

The 6-8% Schultz voters say that now, but will they vote like that in 2020?

Would they stay loyal to Schultz or vote strategically to get Trump out, hope Bernie fails and try again for Schultz in 24?

Given Utah's vote in 2016, I am fairly convinced that moderate third-partists keep their word when it comes to their decisions. Why would they vote out Trump strategically if their gripe is with Sanders and not with Trump? They're just champagne socialists who don't want to pay for all their guilt. They don't want Sanders' tax rates which would hurt them directly.

As for equating approval ratings with voting, it's good to remember Iowa and Florida had beyond-margin-of-error net disapproval of Obama but voted for him again in 2012 anyway.

[Trumptonium1]

But you trust poor people like AOC to not enrich themselves via use of office?

AOC comes from the absolute bottom rung of society -- Schultz comes from the absolute top. There's no difference between them and their intentions and any ban on wealth is outright discrimination.

I don't trust most politicians to not enrich themselves, frankly, but millionaires in particular because they're pretty used to exploitation for personal gain, not everyone is.

The "they're just the same lol" is the exact ill-conceived argument I'd expect from you, so I'll just leave that there.

'ill-conceived argument' says man who just called 20 million Americans "used to exploitation for personal gain"

and they say republicans are the prejudiced discriminators

[Ifreann]

AOC most definitely didn't come from the bottom rung of society. Her dad was an architect who founded a firm that made several hundred thousand dollars a year and iirc she lived in a suburb where the average home sold for nearly a million.

Obviously openly admitting that wouldn't look good cuz she's trying to be a pretend socialist but she certainly wasn't in hardcore poverty.

Socialists don't have to be poor. What do I even call this? Reverse-gatekeeping?

Can't be gatekeeping, WRA isn't a socialist. He's not trying inside and trying to keep AOC out, he's outside trying to sow division.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

43% of the vote, depending on how you divide it up could win an EC vote.

Ohio, Pennsylvania and, Wisconsin, states that Trump won, now have a negative approval rating of him now.

But like I said, way too early to tell right now.

The 6-8% Schultz voters say that now, but will they vote like that in 2020?

Would they stay loyal to Schultz or vote strategically to get Trump out, hope Bernie fails and try again for Schultz in 24?

Given Utah's vote in 2016, I am fairly convinced that moderate third-partists keep their word when it comes to their decisions. Why would they vote out Trump strategically if their gripe is with Sanders and not with Trump? They're just champagne socialists who don't want to pay for all their guilt. They don't want Sanders' tax rates which would hurt them directly.

As for equating approval ratings with voting, it's good to remember Iowa and Florida had beyond-margin-of-error net disapproval of Obama but voted for him again in 2012 anyway.

They know that third parties don't do well, so by voteing Bernie they would make the states burned out in 24 on both mainstream parties. Leaving room for a 3rd party win.

I'd argue that Trump is very different, his unpopularity with the majority of voters could get Ohio, Pennsylvania and, Wisconsin flipped to dem.

[Hakons]

So, not only is this resolution a do-nothing meant to grab headlines ("We need a Green New Deal, if we made one, it should look lile this" is all the resolution does.) but it also doesn't define what "renewables" are.

So everyone's complaining about a resolution which is essentially just an outline of several dozens or more policies that are deemed necessary to implement. If passed now, it wouldn't do anything, because the resolution doesn't let it do anything.

The doom and gloom about an outline crashing the economy without dealing in specifics is rather funny, though.

You can't backtrack and pretend this isn't an issue. Pretty much every Democrat running for president has voiced support for the resolution, with all its absurdities. It is absolutely something that needs to be addressed, considering just how mind-numbingly awful it is. No politician in their right mind should ever support such a travesty, toothless or not, yet here we are with senators and and representatives rushing to endorse it. As a WSJ writer put it, one could only think of such a monstrosity as being the product of a parody bill by Republicans, and not a serious resolution submitted and endorsed by now hundreds of Democratic politicians.

Everyone is complaining because the bill is absolutely bonkers. The "policies that are deemed necessary to implement" could only be conceived in an insane-asylum. The fact that someone wrote this and that so many Democrats are gushing over its beauty is horrifying. I get that people support stupid things because of partisanship, but this is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. Instead of getting hammered for its impossibility and negligence of reality, it's characterized as being "bold." Being stupid isn't bold.

It absolutely would crash the economy. The amount of spending required to do these proposals would throw the government into a debt cycle. The bill literally says we will fund everything on credit. It makes no notion of raising funds and acts like money is a meaningless, nebulous thing that can be printed without worry, as if inflation doesn't exist. Attempting to transition to 100% renewable energy in ten years would destroy the energy sector. Market forces aren't going to do that, and hamfistidly forcing different types of energy and shutting down the efficient, established plants would be pretty similar to a national EMP blast in terms of electric power generation and distribution. The shear magnitude of solar cells and wind turbines required for this is astounding, and it would be a struggle to even find space for them all. This is before we get to the impossible cost for electricity now that we forced a ridiculous infrastructure mix that would be terribly inefficient. While our power generation uses fossil fuels, it is also cheap and efficient. We can't pretend upending the entire system, destroying most of our existing energy infrastructure, installing completely new systems on an impossible scale (all within a decade!) won't absolutely obliterate the system's efficiency and balloon the cost of electricity to energy crisis and economy breaking levels.

That's just getting into the energy proposal and scratching the service on funding impossibilities. There's loads more stupidity in it, ranging from the desire to force people to work to a weird joke about phasing out domesticated cattle from human society. I'm less doom and gloom about this bill, and more thinking are they absolutely out of their minds.

[Far Easter Republic]

But then there's high odds of a socialist coming out for the dems.

[Cannot think of a name]

But then there's high odds of a socialist coming out for the dems.

I think what we're finding is that this bogeyman is not as effective as it once was.

[Hakons]

But then there's high odds of a socialist coming out for the dems.

I think what we're finding is that this bogeyman is not as effective as it once was.

They're not actually socialist either, though AOC is pretty close. I think socialism would stay a bogeyman if people stopped equating lukewarm social democracy with kill-the-capitalists nationalize-the-industry socialism.

[Valrifell]

snip

"I'm not getting hot and bothered over this toothless resolution that does nothing"

He said, while proceeding to get hot and bothered and lecturing on how this would totally destroy the economy and bring both doom and gloom without knowing of a plan to fund or implement the legislation.

Weird, it's like you went through the exact talking points I was talking about.

[Hakons]

snip

"I'm not getting hot and bothered over this toothless resolution that does nothing"

He said, while proceeding to get hot and bothered and lecturing on how this would totally destroy the economy and bring both doom and gloom without knowing of a plan to fund or implement the legislation.

Weird, it's like you went through the exact talking points I was talking about.

Hot and bothered.... ?

Anyway, I said I wasn't doom and gloom, not that I wasn't exasperated at the bills insanity. I would be doom and gloom if the thing had a path to success, which it fortunately does not. I went ahead and explained how terrible the resolution would be for the economy were its oh-so-innocent ideas implemented, so I don't know why you're playing ignorant on this one. The bill is stupid and you're acting like its wrong to say its stupid.

[Galloism]

I don't think you understand my position.

Automation will be bad for the economy long-term in the current capitalist system, change the system, keep the automation.

Remove workers.

The means of production will seize themselves!

Kinky.

[Hediacrana]

Now that we're talking about Schultz again, I was interested to read that only about 16 percent of the electorate identifies as socially progressive yet fiscally conservative; so even if the system wasn't as skewed against third party candidates as it is, he probably wouldn't really get anywhere near the White House. (source)

Another interesting thing from that article (its main point, in fact) is that it questions the assumption that Schultz' candidacy would hurt the Dems more than it would Trump; it points out that in 2016, socially progressive yet fiscally conservative voters overall tended to vote for Trump more often than for Clinton.

[Libertarians]

An AOC adviser last night on Fox News affirmatively denied that the NPR's reporting about the plan was correct, and that AOC's office was not the source of the "FAQ" document. NPR said it was given to them by her office. And now this morning HuffPostis enjoying the take down of fake news Fox News / NPR on that point.

I have a feeling the candidates that rushed to stamp their approval to this project because they're afraid of not being left enough are going to come to regret it. That right there is the type of stuff they will condemn Trump world for doing while just shrugging and saying mistakes happen when AOC does it. If AOC is taking the helm it's roll out is going to look very Trump-y because AOC is very Trump-y in that she's passionate, disorganized, aggressive, and more concerned with the spirit of something than the details.

Democrats that will be most effective at making the case Trump should be more careful in what he's doing - which I think almost all Americans including a lot of his supporters would agree with - are going to be those that say the same of AOC. The rush to get behind AOC on this feels like Hillary-style opportunism rather than something of principle. And looking like a Hillary-style opportunist should be the worst fear of all of these candidates in the general.

[Cannot think of a name]

I think what we're finding is that this bogeyman is not as effective as it once was.

They're not actually socialist either, though AOC is pretty close. I think socialism would stay a bogeyman if people stopped equating lukewarm social democracy with kill-the-capitalists nationalize-the-industry socialism.

They went to the well too often. It's a numb criticism at this point. It's reduced itself to call and response. Democrats make a proposal, the congregation says "SOCIALISM!"

[Genivaria]

I think what we're finding is that this bogeyman is not as effective as it once was.

They're not actually socialist either, though AOC is pretty close. I think socialism would stay a bogeyman if people stopped equating lukewarm social democracy with kill-the-capitalists nationalize-the-industry socialism.

Blame Fox News for that. They've been saying for years that things like free community college and single payer healthcare is the same as "SOCIALISM!!!"
Now enough people want those things so they embrace the word.

[Caldreania]

Why not?

I don't trust them to not exclusively work in their self interest.

And career politicians bleed their hearts out for the people?
As stated earlier, there is a concerning trend of vilifying the people that create jobs and drive the economy, while glorifying people who win a few votes by a few catchphrases.

[Valrifell]

I don't trust them to not exclusively work in their self interest.

And career politicians bleed their hearts out for the people?
As stated earlier, there is a concerning trend of vilifying the people that create jobs and drive the economy, while glorifying people who win a few votes by a few catchphrases.

Career politicians understand that bones have to be tossed at some point or else people will catch on that all you have is rhetoric and platitudes. Millionaires have no such bones to throw nor understand the means into making them.

They also absolutely are not the driving force of the economy. Further, do note you're talking to a Left-Libertarian so I just don't like the wealthy regardless.

[Ifreann]

They're not actually socialist either, though AOC is pretty close. I think socialism would stay a bogeyman if people stopped equating lukewarm social democracy with kill-the-capitalists nationalize-the-industry socialism.

They went to the well too often. It's a numb criticism at this point. It's reduced itself to call and response. Democrats make a proposal, the congregation says "SOCIALISM!"

I'm liking this new variation on the old classic. People who think that socialism is bad are criticising politicians they think are bad for not being socialist enough.

[Salandriagado]

But then there's high odds of a socialist coming out for the dems.

No there isn't.

[Northern Davincia]

They're not actually socialist either, though AOC is pretty close. I think socialism would stay a bogeyman if people stopped equating lukewarm social democracy with kill-the-capitalists nationalize-the-industry socialism.

Blame Fox News for that. They've been saying for years that things like free community college and single payer healthcare is the same as "SOCIALISM!!!"
Now enough people want those things so they embrace the word.

That's why we'll accuse them of being communists next. Resurrect McCarthy!

[Loben]

Huh...Liz warren just threw her chiefs headdress in the ring.