2020 US General Election Thread IV: The Battle Begins

[Ism]

Oh it gets better now people are saying that if Bloomberg doesn't get Hillary he should get Romney.... so according to these people the miracle way to defeat the 2020 Republican party would be to simply become the 2012 Republican party.

Sad that so many of the anti-Trump branch of the Republican party have decided to try and hijack the Democratic party.

Am I alive right now?

Now now TEM, you're not in hell until they win.

[Imperial Joseon]

Am I alive right now?

Now now TEM, you're not in hell until they win.

Or purgatory.

[The Sherpa Empire]

Anyone else think Warren is running for the VP spot?

No.

[Imperial Joseon]

Anyone else think Warren is running for the VP spot?

No.

Just a senator, in my opinion.

[Cisairse]

Oh it gets better now people are saying that if Bloomberg doesn't get Hillary he should get Romney.... so according to these people the miracle way to defeat the 2020 Republican party would be to simply become the 2012 Republican party.

Sad that so many of the anti-Trump branch of the Republican party have decided to try and hijack the Democratic party.

Why are you upset? I thought Americans long bemoaned their two party system, perhaps you obtain a three or four party system now. I think it is quite evident at this time that the Democrats will split after the Trump fiasco is over, whether it be through his defeat or reelection. The Republicans will probably hold on a bit longer but even then you can already see the coming divide and rupture. Isn't this the future American reformists wanted? Multiple parties, more voices, more diverse political opinions? Well, here you have it!

The current system of party being the primary decider of policy alignment is new. From roughly President Eisenhower through President Carter, both parties had liberal, moderate, and conservative wings. The current party system has mostly aligned liberals in the Democratic Party, conservatives in the Republican Party, and moderates in either one, but this is a recent phenomena characterized by the Sixth Party System.

What we're seeing in the Democratic Party is the results of 2016 demonstrating that the 6th's playbook doesn't work any more. If the reaction required to regain power is to abandon ideological conformity and the New Democrat paradigm, then they'll eventually end up there.

This isn't a breakdown of the 2-party system. This is just a realignment of the two parties, which has happened a number of times already.

[Cisairse]

New York Times: Have Zombies Eaten Bloomberg’s and Buttigieg’s Brains?

For those of you who can't read it, the article details two "zombie ideas" that they say should disqualify the centrist candidates from winning the nomination unless they disavow them: Bloomberg's embrace of a debunked racist conspiracy theory which claims that anti-discrimination laws caused the great recession, and Buttigieg's obsession with the federal deficit.

[The Sherpa Empire]

New York Times: Have Zombies Eaten Bloomberg’s and Buttigieg’s Brains?

For those of you who can't read it, the article details two "zombie ideas" that they say should disqualify the centrist candidates from winning the nomination unless they disavow them: Bloomberg's embrace of a debunked racist conspiracy theory which claims that anti-discrimination laws caused the great recession, and Buttigieg's obsession with the federal deficit.

Bloomberg's racial baggage is really disturbing. I'm hoping once the other candidates get a shot at him in the next debate, it will take him down a peg.

[The East Marches II]

New York Times: Have Zombies Eaten Bloomberg’s and Buttigieg’s Brains?

For those of you who can't read it, the article details two "zombie ideas" that they say should disqualify the centrist candidates from winning the nomination unless they disavow them: Bloomberg's embrace of a debunked racist conspiracy theory which claims that anti-discrimination laws caused the great recession, and Buttigieg's obsession with the federal deficit.

Honestly if Paul Krugman thinks something is a bad idea, it's generally good :^)

His article may have made me supporters of both :^)))

[Nobel Hobos 2]

New York Times: Have Zombies Eaten Bloomberg’s and Buttigieg’s Brains?

For those of you who can't read it, the article details two "zombie ideas" that they say should disqualify the centrist candidates from winning the nomination unless they disavow them: Bloomberg's embrace of a debunked racist conspiracy theory which claims that anti-discrimination laws caused the great recession, and Buttigieg's obsession with the federal deficit.

At the same time that Bloomberg is being called out on his housing bubble zombie, Pete Buttigieg is facing justified criticism for buying into another zombie idea — the obsession with government debt. That obsession did much to hobble recovery from the financial crisis.

Krugman dreaming of what could have been, so sad

[Sougra]

New York Times: Have Zombies Eaten Bloomberg’s and Buttigieg’s Brains?

For those of you who can't read it, the article details two "zombie ideas" that they say should disqualify the centrist candidates from winning the nomination unless they disavow them: Bloomberg's embrace of a debunked racist conspiracy theory which claims that anti-discrimination laws caused the great recession, and Buttigieg's obsession with the federal deficit.

Ok, so maybe I've been left out of the loop here, but why is having a heavy focus on the national debt a seemingly bad thing? I understand the whole problem with it being used to justify cutting social services and things that are beneficial to people, which is definitely a problem that needs to be acknowledged. However, I feel like there's more than just that and I've missed the memo quite significantly.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

New York Times: Have Zombies Eaten Bloomberg’s and Buttigieg’s Brains?

For those of you who can't read it, the article details two "zombie ideas" that they say should disqualify the centrist candidates from winning the nomination unless they disavow them: Bloomberg's embrace of a debunked racist conspiracy theory which claims that anti-discrimination laws caused the great recession, and Buttigieg's obsession with the federal deficit.

Which means Bloomberg buys into a very Southern-centric conspiracy, which isn’t even remotely good in the slightest.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

New York Times: Have Zombies Eaten Bloomberg’s and Buttigieg’s Brains?

For those of you who can't read it, the article details two "zombie ideas" that they say should disqualify the centrist candidates from winning the nomination unless they disavow them: Bloomberg's embrace of a debunked racist conspiracy theory which claims that anti-discrimination laws caused the great recession, and Buttigieg's obsession with the federal deficit.

Ok, so maybe I've been left out of the loop here, but why is having a heavy focus on the national debt a seemingly bad thing? I understand the whole problem with it being used to justify cutting social services and things that are beneficial to people, which is definitely a problem that needs to be acknowledged. However, I feel like there's more than just that and I've missed the memo quite significantly.

Idk, I don't get it. He'd be a one-term president, but the greatest president in American history would be the one who dealt with the national debt by getting rid of medicare, Medicaid, social security, food stamps, etc.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

New York Times: Have Zombies Eaten Bloomberg’s and Buttigieg’s Brains?

For those of you who can't read it, the article details two "zombie ideas" that they say should disqualify the centrist candidates from winning the nomination unless they disavow them: Bloomberg's embrace of a debunked racist conspiracy theory which claims that anti-discrimination laws caused the great recession, and Buttigieg's obsession with the federal deficit.

Which means Bloomberg buys into a very Southern-centric conspiracy, which isn’t even remotely good in the slightest.

As rubbish as the conspiracy theory is, forcing anybody to lend money to somebody that they don't want to lend it to is wrong.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

New York Times: Have Zombies Eaten Bloomberg’s and Buttigieg’s Brains?

For those of you who can't read it, the article details two "zombie ideas" that they say should disqualify the centrist candidates from winning the nomination unless they disavow them: Bloomberg's embrace of a debunked racist conspiracy theory which claims that anti-discrimination laws caused the great recession, and Buttigieg's obsession with the federal deficit.

Ok, so maybe I've been left out of the loop here, but why is having a heavy focus on the national debt a seemingly bad thing? I understand the whole problem with it being used to justify cutting social services and things that are beneficial to people, which is definitely a problem that needs to be acknowledged. However, I feel like there's more than just that and I've missed the memo quite significantly.

Krugman loves debt. Here I'll quote a bit:

At this point, however, the debt obsession has been thoroughly debunked by both economic research and experience. We live in a world awash in private savings looking for someplace to go, with investors willing to lend money to governments at incredibly low interest rates. It’s actually irresponsible not to put this money to work investing in the future, both by building physical infrastructure and through programs that help children develop their potential.

Now, the Trump administration is doing it wrong — borrowing large sums, but squandering the money on tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. But even bad deficit spending boosts the economy to some extent, and it is the reason America is still growing reasonably fast while Europe, still in the grip of austerity ideology, is stagnating.

I mostly agree with him, except I'd say that tax cuts are a legitimate way to spend deficit money.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Which means Bloomberg buys into a very Southern-centric conspiracy, which isn’t even remotely good in the slightest.

As rubbish as the conspiracy theory is, forcing anybody to lend money to somebody that they don't want to lend it to is wrong.

Be that as it may, it is also wrong to treat that subprime debt as solid debt and build financial securities on the back of it.
It wasn't the government's wrong (as you see it) which caused a bubble and collapse. It was bank policy.

[Sougra]

Ok, so maybe I've been left out of the loop here, but why is having a heavy focus on the national debt a seemingly bad thing? I understand the whole problem with it being used to justify cutting social services and things that are beneficial to people, which is definitely a problem that needs to be acknowledged. However, I feel like there's more than just that and I've missed the memo quite significantly.

Idk, I don't get it. He'd be a one-term president, but the greatest president in American history would be the one who dealt with the national debt by getting rid of medicare, Medicaid, social security, food stamps, etc.

Not sure if that's a joke or not, to be honest. But hey, people will figure it out.

[Imperial Joseon]

New York Times: Have Zombies Eaten Bloomberg’s and Buttigieg’s Brains?

For those of you who can't read it, the article details two "zombie ideas" that they say should disqualify the centrist candidates from winning the nomination unless they disavow them: Bloomberg's embrace of a debunked racist conspiracy theory which claims that anti-discrimination laws caused the great recession, and Buttigieg's obsession with the federal deficit.

However, hey, it's better than someone pointing fingers and colluding with an enemy nation to secure his presidency.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Idk, I don't get it. He'd be a one-term president, but the greatest president in American history would be the one who dealt with the national debt by getting rid of medicare, Medicaid, social security, food stamps, etc.

Not sure if that's a joke or not, to be honest. But hey, people will figure it out.

Nah, not a fan of any welfare programme honestly. My money is mine, not poor peoples.

[Imperial Joseon]

Not sure if that's a joke or not, to be honest. But hey, people will figure it out.

Nah, not a fan of any welfare programme honestly. My money is mine, not poor peoples.

Welfare nets you money when you're old.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Nah, not a fan of any welfare programme honestly. My money is mine, not poor peoples.

Welfare nets you money when you're old.

Apparently a lot of young people don't believe that. They think it will have collapsed before then.

[Imperial Joseon]

Welfare nets you money when you're old.

Apparently a lot of young people don't believe that. They think it will have collapsed before then.

Work is of utmost concern, since that's the factor going in for your welfare.

[Sougra]

Ok, so maybe I've been left out of the loop here, but why is having a heavy focus on the national debt a seemingly bad thing? I understand the whole problem with it being used to justify cutting social services and things that are beneficial to people, which is definitely a problem that needs to be acknowledged. However, I feel like there's more than just that and I've missed the memo quite significantly.

Krugman loves debt. Here I'll quote a bit:

At this point, however, the debt obsession has been thoroughly debunked by both economic research and experience. We live in a world awash in private savings looking for someplace to go, with investors willing to lend money to governments at incredibly low interest rates. It’s actually irresponsible not to put this money to work investing in the future, both by building physical infrastructure and through programs that help children develop their potential.

Now, the Trump administration is doing it wrong — borrowing large sums, but squandering the money on tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. But even bad deficit spending boosts the economy to some extent, and it is the reason America is still growing reasonably fast while Europe, still in the grip of austerity ideology, is stagnating.

I mostly agree with him, except I'd say that tax cuts are a legitimate way to spend deficit money.

Thank you. So it's the whole idea regarding deficit spending being better for the economy, then?

As for tax cuts being a legitimate way to spend money, I agree, however, I personally question how effective they generally are other than as a thing that wins elections.

However, the investors part has me a bit confused. I'm not well versed in the economics of government, so I don't understand why investors are giving money to the government itself, and not parties or lobbyists.

[Albrenia]

Would cutting down on welfare really 'balance the budget'? I'm not aware of the numbers, but with the enormous debt that the US is constantly building I'm not certain it would.

I'm personally a fan of welfare, and think everyone paying a little more to prevent some truly awful human suffering from happening is worth it even if it isn't 'fair', as such.

[Blargoblarg]

Bloomberg has qualified for the next Democratic debate

I want to see Sanders and the other candidates criticize him for his racist, sexist, and anti-poor people record to his face.

[Imperial Joseon]

Thank you. So it's the whole idea regarding deficit spending being better for the economy, then?

As for tax cuts being a legitimate way to spend money, I agree, however, I personally question how effective they generally are other than as a thing that wins elections.

However, the investors part has me a bit confused. I'm not well versed in the economics of government, so I don't understand why investors are giving money to the government itself, and not parties or lobbyists.

I mean, America can always take out a national debt.