The Boy Who Cried Wolf

[GO-NAD!]

This may be the path to a Democrat victory:
https://thebulwark.com/democrats-should-stop-drinking-hemlock/

 

[Irvrobinson]

This may be the path to a Democrat victory:
https://thebulwark.com/democrats-should-stop-drinking-hemlock/

IMO, there isn't a path to a Democratic victory with the Sanders or Warren. Almost all of my friends are registered Democrats, and they all say that he or she will not vote Democratic in the election if Sanders or Warren is the nominee. (The one exception is a Sanders supporter.) Tax proposals on un-accrued earnings are the sticking point. I do, unfortunately, know more than a few ardent Trump supporters. I don't understand them, but no matter what the guy does they find a way to position it as a great thing.

Just once in my lifetime I would like to vote for a presidential candidate I really believe in, rather than the lesser of two (or more) evils.

[Edited again for clarity. Even I can't figure out the original text.]

 

[GO-NAD!]

IMO, there isn't a path to a Democratic victory with the Sanders or Warren. Almost all of my friends are registered Democrats, and only one, who's not really a friend (he's in my extended family) says that he or she will not vote Democratic in the election if Sanders or Warren is the nominee. The one exception is a Sanders supporter. I do, unfortunately, know more than a few ardent Trump supporters. I don't understand them, but no matter what the guy does they find a way to position it as a great thing.

Just once in my lifetime I would like to vote for presidential candidate I really believe, rather than the lesser of two (or more) evils.

Well, the gist of the piece is that they will need to drop the more extreme aspects of their platform to entice more moderate voters.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

What Irv said.

I'll add, no they don't, but if you are a former law professor for one of the most prestigious law schools in the country and are running for office, you damn well better check what laws your platform is proposing to make sure they either don't exist, or undermine another current law without explaining how you plan to handle it.

I think they only teach how to win Stella awards these days.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Well, the gist of the piece is that they will need to drop the more extreme aspects of their platform to entice more moderate voters.

Except for the part where it defends wealth taxes. Taxing unrealized gains is a deal breaker for so many people. It'll be especially difficult for any candidate discussing taxing unrealized gains because the election is in November, and most people see their property tax bills (along with estate taxes, the only two wealth taxes currently used in the US) in October. As one friend of mine said so well a few years back: "I don't like seeing more apartments built in town. Renters usually vote for property tax increases because they don't see the bill, they see only promised benefits, and they usually hate their landlords."

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

IMO, there isn't a path to a Democratic victory with the Sanders or Warren. Almost all of my friends are registered Democrats, and only one, who's not really a friend (he's in my extended family) says that he or she will not vote Democratic in the election if Sanders or Warren is the nominee. The one exception is a Sanders supporter. I do, unfortunately, know more than a few ardent Trump supporters. I don't understand them, but no matter what the guy does they find a way to position it as a great thing.

Just once in my lifetime I would like to vote for presidential candidate I really believe, rather than the lesser of two (or more) evils.

I agree irv. They’re all full of crap and what’s worse is they all believe their own BS. People seem to have forgotten that we share this country. Why are there “sides” anyway, but mostly why are they so far apart? I’m certainly going to stay in the shallow end of this discussion, but have to ask, why in hell is bernie sanders even being allowed to entertain running? He’s got one foot in the grave already!!! And I’m sure his list of prescriptions is a mile long. How stable IS that guy? Stupid...

 

[GO-NAD!]

I agree irv. They’re all full of crap and what’s worse is they all believe their own BS. People seem to have forgotten that we share this country. Why are there “sides” anyway, but mostly why are they so far apart? I’m certainly going to stay in the shallow end of this discussion, but have to ask, why in hell is bernie sanders even being allowed to entertain running? He’s got one foot in the grave already!!! And I’m sure his list of prescriptions is a mile long. How stable IS that guy? Stupid...

Why are there "sides"? Do you want everyone to agree about everything? If we did, we wouldn't even need elections.

I think Bernie is done now. Even if a majority of Dems were leaning towards him, they're gonna figure that he's too frail to do the job.

 

[highfigh]

I'm not giving her a pass or fail. But, if you base your vote next year on which candidate has made the fewest gaffs, I can only assume you won't be voting for the incumbent.

I'm concerned with the level of gaff, too- if someone can't get the details right, they aren't right for the job. They need to work with their advisors, but the advisors need to be of high quality, too.

I'm very tired of the way the political arena has turned into a giant circus. It seems that Congress isn't even aware of it and they all want to be the ring leader. The only thing missing from the debates is fist fights.

Maybe the candidates could arm wrestle for the White House.

 

[highfigh]

You're just being difficult. Yes, I left out the word "legally", but it's implied. I'm not sure what Warren knows and what she doesn't, but as an ex-law professor she should also know that there is a difference between federal law and state law. In some states some felons are allowed to own guns after being released from prison and parole, but federal law grants no exceptions I'm aware of. (I'm not an attorney.) So gun control laws are like pot possession laws; legal in some state laws, but still illegal according to federal law. If a federal agency isn't involved in the investigation of a crime an ex-convict can legally possess a gun in some states. The difference is that the feds don't seem to ever enforce federal pot laws anymore, except with federal employees, but they appear to rigorously enforce federal gun laws when they get the opportunity.

And some states, like WI, don't do much if anything about private sales- that has cost a lot of lives. I don't know why a state would allow felons to possess guns, but I found this link, which shows that someone can, if certain conditions have been met (pardon or time passed).

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0335.htm

 

[Irvrobinson]

And some states, like WI, don't do much if anything about private sales- that has cost a lot of lives. I don't know why a state would allow felons to possess guns, but I found this link, which shows that someone can, if certain conditions have been met (pardon or time passed).

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0335.htm

The only cases I've read about is for non-violent offenders (like embezzlement), but if the feds ever catch you red-handed in a federal crime it doesn't matter what the state laws are. As you probably know, federal law always trumps state law.

 

[highfigh]

The only cases I've read about is for non-violent offenders (like embezzlement), but if the feds ever catch you red-handed in a federal crime it doesn't matter what the state laws are. As you probably know, federal law always trumps state law.

My puzzlement comes from legislators talking about new laws when criminals can't be bothered to obey the existing ones, as if the new laws will somehow make more of an impression on those who are causing the problems.

Crime used to come with consequences- now, they worry about hurting the feelings of people who are justly incarcerated and reduce sentences by the time served for some violent criminals. IMO, a short stint just makes some people more angry.

 

[panteragstk]

Why are there "sides"? Do you want everyone to agree about everything? If we did, we wouldn't even need elections.

I think Bernie is done now. Even if a majority of Dems were leaning towards him, they're gonna figure that he's too frail to do the job.

I think his point (as well as mine) is that it's fine that there are sides, but when both sides disagree with EVERYTHING the other side says no matter what, just because it wasn't their side that said it, then we will never have progress.

Someone else said it, but I'll say it again. We just need moderate candidates on both sides. That way we can get someone in office that can actually help those sides agree on some things so we can make some changes for the better. Both parties putting in their most extreme versions of themselves is never going to go well.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I think his point (as well as mine) is that it's fine that there are sides, but when both sides disagree with EVERYTHING the other side says no matter what, just because it wasn't their side that said it, then we will never have progress.

Someone else said it, but I'll say it again. We just need moderate candidates on both sides. That way we can get someone in office that can actually help those sides agree on some things so we can make some changes for the better. Both parties putting in their most extreme versions of themselves is never going to go well.

OK, I see what you mean now. Yeah, it does look like the political spectrum is spreading further apart in a tit-for-tat fashion.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I think his point (as well as mine) is that it's fine that there are sides, but when both sides disagree with EVERYTHING the other side says no matter what, just because it wasn't their side that said it, then we will never have progress.

Someone else said it, but I'll say it again. We just need moderate candidates on both sides. That way we can get someone in office that can actually help those sides agree on some things so we can make some changes for the better. Both parties putting in their most extreme versions of themselves is never going to go well.

Yes. Thank you, that was my not very well formed point. Hell, even in my own house we have “sides” on some things. But for most things there’s a “middle”. I mean, we all basically want the same things in life, and when the modern political shiit show gets going, you’d think that either “side” is the only bunch that knows anything and it feels like dogma.
Like you said, it doesn’t matter WHAT the other side is saying, good, bad or otherwise it’s immediately discredited, or called fake news, or whatever. It’s stupid playground bullshit and they all suck. And now all of the stupid campaign ads are such a waste of time and money. All they do is sling mud at the other guy for the whole ad, then SUDDENLY, here’s our candidate who’s NOT like the other guy the ad just ran into the dirt for 45 seconds.
It’s just sad that we’ve basically had to choose the lesser of evils, or least insane, or least criminal candidate for a long time.
Way to ruin the greatest country in earth you stupid childish selfish greedy wastes of skin.

 

[highfigh]

OK, I see what you mean now. Yeah, it does look like the political spectrum is spreading further apart in a tit-for-tat fashion.

No, it's not.

Any debate needs at least two sides but this is almost like the Monty Python Argument sketch with a lot of abuse thrown in for good measure.

Or this-