Progressives, part 3...

I'm telling you, Biden's got a time bomb with this South Africa arrest claim. No one can verify that he was arrested and the guy who he was traveling with said they were never arrested. Seems like a big story waiting to happen. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I'm telling you, Biden's got a time bomb with this South Africa arrest claim. No one can verify that he was arrested and the guy who he was traveling with said they were never arrested. Seems like a big story waiting to happen. 

it's disturbing how he so casually lied about it to lol

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

You and I can run together. 

Wouldn't work out.  I'd try to run a no bullshit campaign, meanwhile everyone would see thru your bullshit. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Socialist policies came on pretty strong during the New Deal. We've been subject to many for a long time. 

Yeah, and he was a trash president.  

posted by like_that

...I'd try to run a no bullshit campaign...

Sadly, you'd never get more than 1% of the vote.

Rule #1 in a political campaign is never tell people the truth.  They'll hate you for it.

posted by gut

If you call yourself a Democratic Socialist in that group, you're actually a communist.

And it's hilarious how "the millionaires and billionaires" has become just "the billionaires".  Plus, if you got rich off a book then that's ok.  Education should be free, but your book costs money!

Still waiting for one of the dems running or one in the media to simply put it to the Bern:  socialism/communism has literally killed and impoverished hundreds of millions of people worldwide over recent centuries; why in the hell are you trying to push the United States into such systems? 

Also, giving Ukraine missiles in its defense against Russia is unequivocally more "anti-Russia" than anything the Obama Admin did.

This whole "Trump is a Putin lapdog" is really nothing more than an artifact of the Russian collusion hoax.  It's bubbling up again because of the Russia/Bernie/Trump interference, because the media just doesn't know when to give up.

It's definitely worth noting, however, that unlike last time, Congress was briefed and Bernie's campaign was made aware of the issue.  Although it sounds like, possibly, some of the things being leaked from that briefing are Adam bull-Schifft specials.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Terrible idea. Even with context, it's not a good look. Probably a lot of anti-Castro Cubans in FL will vote for Trump anyway. Still, a bad look for sure. 

Sure seems like the election is going to come down to Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin or some other small state.

I'd expect Ohio to be totally up for grabs, per usual, but I haven't heard much about it as a battleground state.  Too early to tell, and I haven't looked at polls because maybe it's just MI and PA are polling much higher for Dems than Ohio.

posted by gut

Sure seems like the election is going to come down to Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin or some other small state.

I'd expect Ohio to be totally up for grabs, per usual, but I haven't heard much about it as a battleground state.  Too early to tell, and I haven't looked at polls because maybe it's just MI and PA are polling much higher for Dems than Ohio.

It's curious that PA is polling so high for Sanders, bc with him wanting to ban fracking, it would really hurt them. "Researchers predict the state would lose roughly 609,000 jobs and $261 billion in gross domestic product by 2025 if lawmakers were to issue an outright ban on fracking. "

posted by iclfan2

It's curious that PA is polling so high for Sanders, bc with him wanting to ban fracking, it would really hurt them.

I'm not sure how much stock to put in polls, and they're definitely meaningless this early.

Normally I'd say beating Trump by a few points when he's not doing much campaigning or spending much money isn't a good sign.  Except he's never stopped doing any of that.  But, still, I'd expect when it becomes an actual head-to-head match-up Trump will pick-up more than a few points.

posted by iclfan2

It's curious that PA is polling so high for Sanders, bc with him wanting to ban fracking, it would really hurt them. "Researchers predict the state would lose roughly 609,000 jobs and $261 billion in gross domestic product by 2025 if lawmakers were to issue an outright ban on fracking. "

Don't know the breakdown but I'd think the numbers are spiked by the Philadelphia area and not so much the rural parts.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Socialist policies came on pretty strong during the New Deal. We've been subject to many for a long time. 

Yeah, and he was a trash president.  

 

But it has helped/benefited hundreds of millions of people and didn't destroy the country like the Right promised it would. I think that's why you see such a movement now. People are using history to show how the same people have used the same scare tactics over time. In the past week alone I've seen political cartoons and advertisements that if it weren't for the obvious age, you'd think they were made today. The same scare tactics promising Communism and the downfall of Capitalism were used during the New  Deal. The New Deal took place... yet the right is claiming we need to keep this from happening so Socialism and Communism doesn't take over like it did 80 years ago. Oh wait.. it didn't happen then either. 

posted by kizer permanente

But it has helped/benefited hundreds of millions of people and didn't destroy the country like the Right promised it would. I think that's why you see such a movement now. People are using history to show how the same people have used the same scare tactics over time. In the past week alone I've seen political cartoons and advertisements that if it weren't for the obvious age, you'd think they were made today. The same scare tactics promising Communism and the downfall of Capitalism were used during the New  Deal. The New Deal took place... yet the right is claiming we need to keep this from happening so Socialism and Communism doesn't take over like it did 80 years ago. Oh wait.. it didn't happen then either. 

Social Security and Medicare are broke – unfunded liabilities into the tens of trillions of dollars.  So if you want to go fully speed ahead with more of that, then yes, it will be game over.

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

Social Security and Medicare are broke – unfunded liabilities into the tens of trillions of dollars.  So if you want to go fully speed ahead with more of that, then yes, it will be game over.

When you make cuts to it, that tends to happen. 

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

Social Security and Medicare are broke – unfunded liabilities into the tens of trillions of dollars.  So if you want to go fully speed ahead with more of that, then yes, it will be game over.

Neither SS nor Medicare are broke. That is part of the typical scare tactic references above. Just because you guys want to repeat that mantra over and over doesn't make it true. 

posted by like_that

Wouldn't work out.  I'd try to run a no bullshit campaign, meanwhile everyone would see thru your bullshit. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Socialist policies came on pretty strong during the New Deal. We've been subject to many for a long time. 

Yeah, and he was a trash president.  

 

Very compelling argument. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Neither SS nor Medicare are broke. That is part of the typical scare tactic references above. Just because you guys want to repeat that mantra over and over doesn't make it true. 

Eh, I think they're more right than that.  Not that the two programs are bankrupt and unable to pay out anything.  Of course, that's not so.

However, at least for Social Security, the projected payouts are lower than the pay-ins.  If I'm being obligated to pay into a retirement account, and when I'm eligible to withdraw, I'm only getting 70 cents on the dollar, I'd certainly call that "broken," whether or not I'd call it "broke."

posted by O-Trap

Eh, I think they're more right than that.  Not that the two programs are bankrupt and unable to pay out anything.  Of course, that's not so.

However, at least for Social Security, the projected payouts are lower than the pay-ins.  If I'm being obligated to pay into a retirement account, and when I'm eligible to withdraw, I'm only getting 70 cents on the dollar, I'd certainly call that "broken," whether or not I'd call it "broke."

SS has always been subject to this condition. It was always a system whereas it would distribute to retirees what's being paid in currently. Sometimes thered be a surplus and other times not. But to say it's "broke" or"going bankrupt" is not true and only a recurring scare tactic

The correct descriptor is Ponzi scheme. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

SS has always been subject to this condition. It was always a system whereas it would distribute to retirees what's being paid in currently. Sometimes thered be a surplus and other times not. But to say it's "broke" or"going bankrupt" is not true and only a recurring scare tactic

If it's always been subject to this, that's problematic, and effectively, it's equitable to something that will never turn a profit.  That is how companies go bankrupt, so it's not hard to imagine why people would refer to it that way.

As for when it has a surplus, you'd functionally need people to stop living so long, it would seem.  Or you'd need the ones who kick early to do so before their benefits kick in.

I mean, it's one hell of a morbid silver lining to the obesity and heart disease epidemic, but I guess you could look at it that way.

posted by justincredible

The correct descriptor is Ponzi scheme. 

It does indeed fit the model.