DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

 nohero said "The first sentence of her first statement set forth a fact. The rest of the statement set forth her opinion, which was consistent with her later statements. Or more accurately, her tweets (short statements in a character-limited forum). She made other statements, also all consistent."

As I understand it nohero is making the argument that the first sentence of Warren's statement is just a plain old fact that does not tie in with her viewpoint. That is the alleged background fact that I refer to. 

 that's a pretty odd interpretation. no wonder you're confused.

 I'm confused? Last night you said Warren's statements on Soleimani's death were "perfectly consistent". Then a few hours later you said "Warren is being inconsistent in this case."

ETA: I was wrong here as DaveSchmidt notes below. 

Smedley said:

nohero said:

Smedley said:

 Or saying that is your out to not address the question. 

Presumably the purpose of a candidate's statement about a big international incident is to convey the candidate's viewpoint on that incident. Why would Warren lead her statement with a background fact that does not tie in with her viewpoint?  

 You're asking why someone who knows how to craft a succinct, intelligent argument would anticipate the sleazy arguments from the other side, such as Nikki Haley's?

If you honestly don't understand this, I can't help you.

Actually I didn't say a word about Nikki Haley, but if you want to believe your question is the one I asked, have at it. You can answer for me too.

 I gave a reason why Senator Warren would have included that fact in her response.  If you honestly didn't understand my reply, I hope you reconsider and see that I wasn't not responding to your point.

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

 that's a pretty odd interpretation. no wonder you're confused.

 I'm confused? Last night you said Warren's statements on Soleimani's death were "perfectly consistent". Then a few hours later you said "Warren is being inconsistent in this case."

“This case” being fund-raising. That was one of the clear ones. 

DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

So I don't get your question. Is it clear what a person is supposed to do with the other 10,834 comments but not mine?

Not always. When they aren’t, I choose which ones I’m interested in seeking some clarity about. It don’t understand why you raised the Warren inconsistency, as you see it, in the first place, so, as someone who’s interested in what you have to say, I asked. 

 Fair enough. This is a thread to discuss 2020 candidates. Yesterday I saw a CNN column that I found interesting about one of the leading candidates. I posted the link with my observation and I mostly wanted to see what Warren supporters had to say about it. That is all. 

DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

 that's a pretty odd interpretation. no wonder you're confused.

 I'm confused? Last night you said Warren's statements on Soleimani's death were "perfectly consistent". Then a few hours later you said "Warren is being inconsistent in this case."

“This case” being fund-raising. That was one of the clear ones. 

 Duly noted. My error. 

Smedley said:

 I'm confused? Last night you said Warren's statements on Soleimani's death were "perfectly consistent". Then a few hours later you said "Warren is being inconsistent in this case."

ETA: I was wrong here as DaveSchmidt notes below. 

 I said she was inconsistent regarding fundraising.

I think I was pretty clear about that.

some people prefer a president like the guy who inspired this comment.

The greatest thing about this man is he’s steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this man’s beliefs never will.

Kind of surprised nobody referred to this column in the NYT yesterday.  Maybe because it referenced data, and didn't correspond with many folks' preconceived biases about what Democratic presidential candidates need to do to win.  It's an analysis of the Cooperative Congressional Election Study survey, the largest publicly-available election survey.  The authors set out to determine how a Democratic candidate can capture members of these very important voter groups:

• Obama voters who then voted Trump in 2016
• Trump voters who voted Democratic in congressional elections in 2018
• Obama voters who did not vote at all in 2016

Spoiler alert:  they don't advise moving right or to the center.

How Democrats Can Win Back Obama-Trump Defectors 

They don’t have to lose their souls to do it. Just the opposite.

ml1 said:

Maybe because it referenced data, and didn't correspond with many folks' preconceived biases about what Democratic presidential candidates need to do to win. 

That’s one possibility. Another is that it hasn’t appeared in print yet, I don’t think.

DaveSchmidt said:

That’s one possibility. Another is that it hasn’t appeared in print yet, I don’t think.

 I'm not the only person here who reads the NYT online.

You’re probably right then. We read it online and didn’t comment on it because it referenced data and didn’t correspond with our preconceived biases.

DaveSchmidt said:

You’re probably right then. We read it online and didn’t comment on it because it referenced data and didn’t correspond with our preconceived biases.

 maybe you're right.  Because people who see studies that go against the arguments they've been making for months usually rush to post them here.

ml1 said:

DaveSchmidt said:

That’s one possibility. Another is that it hasn’t appeared in print yet, I don’t think.

 I'm not the only person here who reads the NYT online.

Fair enough, but a lot of us do read the analog version.  The only time I check the online version is to debunk one of Paul's "Why isn't the MSM covering this story?" posts.

nohero said:

Fair enough, but a lot of us do read the analog version.  The only time I check the online version is to debunk one of Paul's "Why isn't the MSM covering this story?" posts.

 fair enough.  Maybe someone else would have referred to it.  But my snide comment aside, people should read it.  I don't really expect it to change anyone's mind though.

ml1 said:

nohero said:

Fair enough, but a lot of us do read the analog version.  The only time I check the online version is to debunk one of Paul's "Why isn't the MSM covering this story?" posts.

 fair enough.  Maybe someone else would have referred to it.  But my snide comment aside, people should read it.  I don't really expect it to change anyone's mind though.

 I read it. I don't think it suggests moving very far left. Obama supported an assault weapons ban and being in the Paris climate treaty, and I think it can be reasonably assumed that whichever Democrat is nominated would also support those. Obama moved the needle toward more affordable healthcare and again I think it can reasonably be assumed that any Democratic president would seek to do the same. 

Unless I missed something I don't see anything on the furthest-left proposals, stuff like green new deal, free college and loan cancellation, M4A with no private insurance, national rent control, etc. 

I read the piece as suggesting Democrats should run on bread-and-butter Democratic principles rather than just 'Trump sucks'.  Not that Democrats should nominate a far left candidate.

Smedley said:

 I read it. I don't think it suggests moving very far left. Obama supported an assault weapons ban and being in the Paris climate treaty, and I think it can be reasonably assumed that whichever Democrat is nominated would also support those. Obama moved the needle toward more affordable healthcare and again I think it can reasonably be assumed that any Democratic president would seek to do the same. 

Unless I missed something I don't see anything on the furthest-left proposals, stuff like green new deal, free college and loan cancellation, M4A with no private insurance, national rent control, etc. 

I read the piece as suggesting Democrats should run on bread-and-butter Democratic principles rather than just 'Trump sucks'.  Not that Democrats should nominate a far left candidate.

Your conclusion only works if you define Medicare For All as something other than what it is. Because Biden and Klobuchar are certainly not calling their plans M4A, and Buttigieg's version comes with a major qualifier. I'm also not aware of any of them proposing a millionaires tax. So I'm not sure where you get the notion that all the Democrats support every issue mentioned in the article. 

Its good to see Warren bringing up the terrible bankruptcy bill that Delaware Joe helped shove down the throats of the American people.  Its easy to forget that, when he was a Senator, Biden was wholly owned by the credit card industry. He may style himself as Uncle Joe these days but Great Uncle Grabby was no friend to the working men and women.

Klinker said:

Its good to see Warren bringing up the terrible bankruptcy bill that Delaware Joe helped shove down the throats of the American people.  Its easy to forget that, when he was a Senator, Biden was wholly owned by the credit card industry. He may style himself as Uncle Joe these days but Great Uncle Grabby was no friend to the working men and women.

 Disgusting!!!

"Bernie Sanders says he doesn’t want a super PAC. Instead, he has Our Revolution, a nonprofit political organization he founded that functions much the same as one.

"Like a super PAC, which is shorthand for super political action committee, Our Revolution can raise unlimited sums from wealthy patrons that dwarf the limits faced by candidates and conventional PACs. Unlike a super PAC, however, the group doesn’t have to disclose its donors — a stream of revenue commonly referred to as “dark money.”

"Now, with less than one month to go before the Iowa caucuses, Our Revolution appears to be skirting campaign finance law, which forbids groups founded by federal candidates and officeholders from using large donations to finance federal election activity, including Sanders’ 2020 bid."

The rest:
https://apnews.com/345bbd1af529cfb1e41305fa3ab1e604 

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

 I read it. I don't think it suggests moving very far left. Obama supported an assault weapons ban and being in the Paris climate treaty, and I think it can be reasonably assumed that whichever Democrat is nominated would also support those. Obama moved the needle toward more affordable healthcare and again I think it can reasonably be assumed that any Democratic president would seek to do the same. 

Unless I missed something I don't see anything on the furthest-left proposals, stuff like green new deal, free college and loan cancellation, M4A with no private insurance, national rent control, etc. 

I read the piece as suggesting Democrats should run on bread-and-butter Democratic principles rather than just 'Trump sucks'.  Not that Democrats should nominate a far left candidate.

Your conclusion only works if you define Medicare For All as something other than what it is. Because Biden and Klobuchar are certainly not calling their plans M4A, and Buttigieg's version comes with a major qualifier. I'm also not aware of any of them proposing a millionaires tax. So I'm not sure where you get the notion that all the Democrats support every issue mentioned in the article. 

 First off I never said "all the Democrats support every issue mentioned in the article." My point was on balance, the article and its data do not suggest that Democrats should move to the left, as seems to be your interpretation. 

3 of the 4 issues with the most 'Obama, Trump, Democrat' voter support -- Assault weapons ban, Paris, dreamers -- are in line with the platform of pretty much every Democratic candidate. And there's lots of gray area around M4A -- the article shows ~80% of the O,T,D voter bloc supports this, but is this just M4A conceptually or M4A with the abolishment of private insurance? I suspect it's the former, as there's lots of data out there that shows support for M4A craters when it comes with the demise of private insurance.

So 3 of the 4 major data points would work with Biden, Sanders, or anyone in between. And the 4th major data point is mixed. 

Show me something where 80% of O,T,D voters support the green new deal, free college and loan cancellation, M4A with no private insurance, and national rent control, and I'll agree that data supports a move to the left. 

Smedley said:

And there's lots of gray area around M4A -- the article shows ~80% of the O,T,D voter bloc supports this, but is this just M4A conceptually or M4A with the abolishment of private insurance? I suspect it's the former, as there's lots of data out there that shows support for M4A craters when it comes with the demise of private insurance.

The survey question on which the M4A finding is based asked simply: 

Thinking now about health care policy, would you support or oppose each of the following proposals?

Medicare for all Americans.

DaveSchmidt said:

The survey question on which the M4A finding is based asked simply: 

Thinking now about health care policy, would you support or oppose each of the following proposals?

Medicare for all Americans.

 They should ask a follow-up:

And do you understand what that means?

drummerboy said:

They should ask a follow-up:

And do you understand what that means?

If surveys asked whether you understood what something meant, how often do you think your yesses would be right?

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

They should ask a follow-up:

And do you understand what that means?

If surveys asked whether you understood what something meant, how often do you think your yesses would be right?

 Dunno. Probably need another survey for that.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Klinker said:

Its good to see Warren bringing up the terrible bankruptcy bill that Delaware Joe helped shove down the throats of the American people.  Its easy to forget that, when he was a Senator, Biden was wholly owned by the credit card industry. He may style himself as Uncle Joe these days but Great Uncle Grabby was no friend to the working men and women.

 Disgusting!!!

 Indeed.  On top of everything else Biden is fake to the core. He plagiarized his persona.

drummerboy said:

 They should ask a follow-up:

And do you understand what that means?

I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't apply to the candidates that specifically avoid using those words to describe their health care positions. 

Smedley said:

 First off I never said "all the Democrats support every issue mentioned in the article." My point was on balance, the article and its data do not suggest that Democrats should move to the left, as seems to be your interpretation. 

3 of the 4 issues with the most 'Obama, Trump, Democrat' voter support -- Assault weapons ban, Paris, dreamers -- are in line with the platform of pretty much every Democratic candidate. And there's lots of gray area around M4A -- the article shows ~80% of the O,T,D voter bloc supports this, but is this just M4A conceptually or M4A with the abolishment of private insurance? I suspect it's the former, as there's lots of data out there that shows support for M4A craters when it comes with the demise of private insurance.

So 3 of the 4 major data points would work with Biden, Sanders, or anyone in between. And the 4th major data point is mixed. 

Show me something where 80% of O,T,D voters support the green new deal, free college and loan cancellation, M4A with no private insurance, and national rent control, and I'll agree that data supports a move to the left. 

 the survey certainly doesn't support tacking toward the center as a successful path for the Democrats. It is probably why even the so-called centrists like Biden have moved to the left of where they used to be. 

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

 First off I never said "all the Democrats support every issue mentioned in the article." My point was on balance, the article and its data do not suggest that Democrats should move to the left, as seems to be your interpretation. 

3 of the 4 issues with the most 'Obama, Trump, Democrat' voter support -- Assault weapons ban, Paris, dreamers -- are in line with the platform of pretty much every Democratic candidate. And there's lots of gray area around M4A -- the article shows ~80% of the O,T,D voter bloc supports this, but is this just M4A conceptually or M4A with the abolishment of private insurance? I suspect it's the former, as there's lots of data out there that shows support for M4A craters when it comes with the demise of private insurance.

So 3 of the 4 major data points would work with Biden, Sanders, or anyone in between. And the 4th major data point is mixed. 

Show me something where 80% of O,T,D voters support the green new deal, free college and loan cancellation, M4A with no private insurance, and national rent control, and I'll agree that data supports a move to the left. 

 the survey certainly doesn't support tacking toward the center as a successful path for the Democrats. It is probably why even the so-called centrists like Biden have moved to the left of where they used to be. 

I agree it doesn't support moving toward center. Nor does it support a move to the left. Really I think it supports Democrats being Democrat.  

I'd like to see O,T,D voter approval numbers on green new deal, free college and loan cancellation, M4A with no private insurance, and national rent control. I suspect those numbers would be well below 50%.

I do not know what is meant by "National Rent Control". The proposals I see relate to Public Housing and Federally subsidized housing. If a private landlord is receiving a Federal Subsidy then Federal Rules apply.

Is anyone advocating that the Federal Government tell me what rents I can charge for residential tenants in a property I own and paid for solely with my own money or a non-federally guaranteed mortgage from a bank?

A couple of other questions. 

How many Senior Citizens eligible for Medicare have rejected it and opted to pay for private insurance instead?

Are there any places where the children of millionaires and billionaires may not attend Public High School without paying tuition?

The leading progressive candidate has called for national rent control. 

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1175834645981736962?s=20