Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Inslee and Hickenlooper out

[method115]

Now offering bet:

Bernard Sanders will pass Elizabeth Warren in national polling average within the next three weeks.

Hasn't he been ahead of her for a long time now until just recently?

 

[waiguoren]

Hasn't he been ahead of her for a long time now until just recently?

True, but I think many people don't see him gaining the ground back. I do.

 

[method115]

True, but I think many people don't see him gaining the ground back. I do.

Yea I definitely think he can over take her again. Especially once we get rid of all these candidates and people have more time to talk.

 

[xcvbn]

They're doing it again and in full force.


So much for the "unbiased, highly credible numbers guy"

CNN? Quick to white knight WaPo- but not without a Bernie=literally Trump!

NYT too? No way. They're the pinnacle of objective journalism!

Ahh, yes. Thank Mr. Chompsky. It all makes sense now.

 

[bobgeese]

They're doing it again and in full force.


So much for the "unbiased, highly credible numbers guy"

CNN? Quick to white knight WaPo- but not without a Bernie=literally Trump!

NYT too? No way. They're the pinnacle of objective journalism!

Ahh, yes. Thank Mr. Chompsky. It all makes sense now.

They’re not even trying to hide it...



Feelz bad man.

 

[lilelvis]

It's more about unlocking the labor force and economy than instituting social equity. Odious student loan debt locks people into jobs, prevents them from buying houses and cars, and transfers billions of dollars a year in interest payments to loan processors. Personally, I would be more comfortable with partial forgiveness of a certain percentage (so that there are still disincentives to borrowing more than is needed) along with the complete abolition of student loan interest. The fact that someone with $100,000 in debt is going to pay $7,000 a year just in interest while trying to pay it down is absurd.

However, regardless, persons working low-paying jobs won't be the ones subsidizing loan forgiveness, obviously.

Holy shit Trots. This is pretty weak for the, self proclaimed, smartest lawyer on Sherdog.

1. Don't take out a loan you can't repay.
2. Taxing the rich to pay for shitty government actions (student loans) is the opposite of "unlocking the labor force". Those are the same people that create great jobs for the career oriented college graduate.
3. No one will be interested in loaning money for "interest free" loans. They'll invest in areas where they can make a return.
4. The government has no business subsidizing 4, 7 or ten years of anybody's adult life. The government has NO money.
5. The top 50% of earners pay for everything the government does. Most of them are not "Rich".
6. Just like most government hyper regulated markets, proponents of the FSA said it would change things for schools and lenders, but stay the same for students. What a fucking farce.

"The change will have a big impact on some lenders and colleges but relatively little on borrowers. They will continue to get the same loans - including Stafford loans for students and Plus loans for parents and graduate students - on largely the same terms."
https://www.sfgate.com/business/net...r-student-loan-program-from-banks-3193888.php

Economics 101, The consumer ALWAYS pays.....

 

[Trotsky]

Holy shit Trots. This is pretty weak for the, self proclaimed, smartest lawyer on Sherdog.

1. Don't take out a loan you can't repay.
2. Taxing the rich to pay for shitty government actions (student loans) is the opposite of "unlocking the labor force". Those are the same people that create great jobs for the career oriented college graduate.
3. No one will be interested in loaning money for "interest free" loans. They'll invest in areas where they can make a return.
4. The government has no business subsidizing 4, 7 or ten years of anybody's adult life. The government has NO money.
5. The top 50% of earners pay for everything the government does. Most of them are not "Rich".
6. Just like most government hyper regulated markets, proponents of the FSA said it would change things for schools and lenders, but stay the same for students. What a fucking farce.

"The change will have a big impact on some lenders and colleges but relatively little on borrowers. They will continue to get the same loans - including Stafford loans for students and Plus loans for parents and graduate students - on largely the same terms."
https://www.sfgate.com/business/net...r-student-loan-program-from-banks-3193888.php

Economics 101, The consumer ALWAYS pays.....

Of course, you have no idea what you are talking about.

1. Don't take out a loan you can't repay.

Cool, I won't. That still does nothing to address the issue or present coherent policy solutions. Kind of like the people who respond to talks about poverty or teenage pregnancy with "go to college and make more money" or "don't have sex." It's fine enough advice, even if completely lacking in wisdom, but it doesn't do much beside allow the speaker to delude themselves into thinking they've solved the issue. Even if we could just blare your shitty advice on giant speakers across the nation, it wouldn't do anything to improve the problem or country.

2. Taxing the rich to pay for shitty government actions (student loans) is the opposite of "unlocking the labor force". Those are the same people that create great jobs for the career oriented college graduate.

Your response is conclusory. A labor force is unlocked when workers can freely move from job to job and make employers compete for their services in a truly free market. You didn't so much refute that as peddle garbage talking points propagated by your betters.

Also, there's also no real basis for the "create jobs" nonsense. Persons entering the marketplace create jobs. Existing oligarchs do not. Would you care to explain to us all how the Walton family is creating high paying jobs, as opposed to providing low-paying jobs that have to be subsidized by the taxpayer and eliminating two or three jobs for every one that it provides by monpolizing local markets and vertically integrating?

3. No one will be interested in loaning money for "interest free" loans. They'll invest in areas where they can make a return.

Only 7% of student loans are private.

4. The government has no business subsidizing 4, 7 or ten years of anybody's adult life. The government has NO money.[

Again, conclusory. You, not having a clue about policy, have no business prescribing what the government has no business doing.

Some of the rest of us are in the business of discussing and prescribing efficient and beneficial policy, not attempting to short circuit the conversation with ignorant platitudes about the scope of government. Also, the government has plenty of money, whether you're talking about reality or making an argument about rightful entitlement: in the former case, it's obviously flush, and in the second case it is absolutely entitled to revenue that it enables, subsidizes, and creates in order to keep doing so.

5. The top 50% of earners pay for everything the government does. Most of them are not "Rich".

Uhhh, what? You're right, but it's completely irrelevant.

6. Just like most government hyper regulated markets, proponents of the FSA said it would change things for schools and lenders, but stay the same for students. What a fucking farce.

"The change will have a big impact on some lenders and colleges but relatively little on borrowers. They will continue to get the same loans - including Stafford loans for students and Plus loans for parents and graduate students - on largely the same terms."
https://www.sfgate.com/business/net...r-student-loan-program-from-banks-3193888.php

Economics 101, The consumer ALWAYS pays.....

Again...what?

There has been little impact on borrowers. Meanwhile, the growth rate of student loan debt has considerably decreased since 2008. In eight years under Obama, student loan debt increased by 25% and parent loan debt increased by 0%. In the eight years before Obama, student loan debt increased by 40% and parent loan debt increased by 40%.

 

[lilelvis]

Of course, you have no idea what you are talking about.



Cool, I won't. That still does nothing to address the issue or present coherent policy solutions. Kind of like the people who respond to talks about poverty or teenage pregnancy with "go to college and make more money" or "don't have sex." It's fine enough advice, even if completely lacking in wisdom, but it doesn't do much beside allow the speaker to delude themselves into thinking they've solved the issue. Even if we could just blare your shitty advice on giant speakers across the nation, it wouldn't do anything to improve the problem or country.



Your response is conclusory. A labor force is unlocked when workers can freely move from job to job and make employers compete for their services in a truly free market. You didn't so much refute that as peddle garbage talking points propagated by your betters.

Also, there's also no real basis for the "create jobs" nonsense. Persons entering the marketplace create jobs. Existing oligarchs do not. Would you care to explain to us all how the Walton family is creating high paying jobs, as opposed to providing low-paying jobs that have to be subsidized by the taxpayer and eliminating two or three jobs for every one that it provides by monpolizing local markets and vertically integrating?



Only 7% of student loans are private.



Again, conclusory. You, not having a clue about policy, have no business prescribing what the government has no business doing.

Some of the rest of us are in the business of discussing and prescribing efficient and beneficial policy, not attempting to short circuit the conversation with ignorant platitudes about the scope of government. Also, the government has plenty of money, whether you're talking about reality or making an argument about rightful entitlement: in the former case, it's obviously flush, and in the second case it is absolutely entitled to revenue that it enables, subsidizes, and creates in order to keep doing so.



Uhhh, what? You're right, but it's completely irrelevant.



Again...what?

There has been little impact on borrowers. Meanwhile, the growth rate of student loan debt has considerably decreased since 2008. In eight years under Obama, student loan debt increased by 25% and parent loan debt increased by 0%. In the eight years before Obama, student loan debt increased by 40% and parent loan debt increased by 40%.

If things were only half as complicated as you wish they were, you'd make more sense. You nailed it, your in the business of "discussing" policy. I'm actually in the business of expanding the economy, creating good paying entry level and graduate level jobs and expanding the wealth base for myself and the people who work for my companies.

Besides, you are completely full of shit:



We will never agree on any of this. You think regulation is the answer, I think it is the problem. You like income redistribution, I like income expansion. You think you are right and everyone should be like you, I think I'm right and everyone should be like me.

I'm not sure why your default is to call everyone stupid. It says a lot about you, and little about those you are describing.

Seriously, I don't call you stupid because you have strong linguistic skills and will likely grow to appreciate the wisdom of successful people around you, appreciating those with real skin in the game. It seems as though you are currently discounting the knowledge and wisdom of the economic engines of American success with blind allegiance to academia.
Both are to be applauded and both are necessary. Not one over the other.

 

[Trotsky]

If things were only half as complicated as you wish they were, you'd make more sense.

It genuinely amuses me when persons like yourself pull this line.

"I don't understand what they're saying because they're just making it too complicated. Everything is really easy. Who needs academics, economists, doctors, lawyers, or engineers? We should elect a reality show star!"

Besides, you are completely full of shit:

What do you think this says? It certainly isn't measuring student loan cost growth, as was specified.

We will never agree on any of this. You think regulation is the answer, I think it is the problem. You like income redistribution, I like income expansion. You think you are right and everyone should be like you, I think I'm right and everyone should be like me.

Thoughtless recitation of broad ideological positions ("I think regulation is the problem, not the answer," etc.) made in order to not think about issues or posit strategies toward resolving them (and instead just insisting it's not your problem, it will work out eventually, etc.) is equal to reasoned arguments made in order to think about issues and posit resolutions.

I'm not sure why your default is to call everyone stupid. It says a lot about you, and little about those you are describing.

You do realize you started this conversation with "Holy shit Trots. This is pretty weak for the, self proclaimed, smartest lawyer on Sherdog," right?

Also, I didn't call you stupid. I said you don't know the topic that you're talking about. Which is objectively true, which is why you're presenting an argument that is devoid of specifics about the issue and predicated only on broad ideological talking points.

 

[lilelvis]

It genuinely amuses me when persons like yourself pull this line.

"I don't understand what they're saying because they're just making it too complicated. Everything is really easy. Who needs academics, economists, doctors, lawyers, or engineers? We should elect a reality show star!"



What do you think this says? It certainly isn't measuring student loan cost growth, as was specified.




Thoughtless recitation of broad ideological positions ("I think regulation is the problem, not the answer," etc.) made in order to not think about issues or posit strategies toward resolving them (and instead just insisting it's not your problem, it will work out eventually, etc.) is equal to reasoned arguments made in order to think about issues and posit resolutions.



You do realize you started this conversation with "Holy shit Trots. This is pretty weak for the, self proclaimed, smartest lawyer on Sherdog," right?

Also, I didn't call you stupid. I said you don't know the topic that you're talking about. Which is objectively true, which is why you're presenting an argument that is devoid of specifics about the issue and predicated only on broad ideological talking points.

Do you want a job?

 

[method115]

True, but I think many people don't see him gaining the ground back. I do.

Looks like Bernie just past up Warren again. Just barely 17.2 vs 16.8

 

[waiguoren]

Looks like Bernie just past up Warren again. Just barely 17.2 vs 16.8

Thanks for the update. No one took the bet.

Biden must fall off more for Sanders to win. Biden people will go to Sanders when they abandon ship more than any other candidate. However, the Sanders people can't run a flailing attack-Biden campaign. That's my biggest concern for the Sanders campaign---impatience. Let Biden bleed out, just provide a sharp contrast. Once there are four or five people on that debate stage, the voters will start to appreciate the difference. Too many candidates right now. If Sanders attacks recklessly, he will risk alienating Biden voters.

 

[method115]

Thanks for the update. No one took the bet.

Biden must fall off more for Sanders to win. Biden people will go to Sanders when they abandon ship more than any other candidate. However, the Sanders people can't run a flailing attack-Biden campaign. That's my biggest concern for the Sanders campaign---impatience. Let Biden bleed out, just provide a sharp contrast. Once there are four or five people on that debate stage, the voters will start to appreciate the difference. Too many candidates right now. If Sanders attacks recklessly, he will risk alienating Biden voters.

Agreed. You could tell just from the last debate. So many people were going after Biden you almost felt bad for him.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

These 'plans' to end gin violence are all bullshit posturing.

The only way to do it would be to declare all guns illegal and then raid every house in the country and find all the guns. Of course that would take more than four years and you wouldn't get re-elected so you'd have to suspend democracy and make yourself dictator.

Until one of the nominees outlines this plan, they are just feeding you platitudes.

 

[lilelvis]

These 'plans' to end gin violence are all bullshit posturing.

The only way to do it would be to declare all guns illegal and then raid every house in the country and find all the guns. Of course that would take more than four years and you wouldn't get re-elected so you'd have to suspend democracy and make yourself dictator.

Until one of the nominees outlines this plan, they are just feeding you platitudes.

I didn't realize Gin was that out of control... It does give me a horrible headache though...

 

[waiguoren]

New Hill poll out today. Compared to the last poll two weeks ago, all of the top five are showing declines.

Biden -3%
Sanders -4%
Warren -2%
Harris -2%
Buttigieg -1%.

Marianne Williamson had the biggest gain.

Williamson +2%
Klobuchar +1%
Bullock +1%
Castro +1%

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...biden-sanders-warren-support-dips-in-new-poll


Also, a new South Carolina poll from Post and Courier is out. Compared to the last iteration (two months ago):

Biden -1%
Sanders +7%
Warren even
Harris +3%
Buttigieg -6%
Booker -1%
O'Rourke -3%

Biden still has a 19% lead, down from a 20% lead last time.

https://www.postandcourier.com/poli...cle_d5064164-be11-11e9-8de3-03c1577ccfa6.html

 

[luckyshot]

Hickenlooper is out.

Hopefully he runs for Corky Gardner’s Senate seat.

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/15/7509...-presidential-bid-as-beto-orourke-recasts-his

New Hill poll out today. Compared to the last poll two weeks ago, all of the top five are showing declines.

Biden -3%
Sanders -4%
Warren -2%
Harris -2%
Buttigieg -1%.

Marianne Williamson had the biggest gain.

Williamson +2%
Klobuchar +1%
Bullock +1%
Castro +1%

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...biden-sanders-warren-support-dips-in-new-poll


Also, a new South Carolina poll from Post and Courier is out. Compared to the last iteration (two months ago):

Biden -1%
Sanders +7%
Warren even
Harris +3%
Buttigieg -6%
Booker -1%
O'Rourke -3%

Biden still has a 19% lead, down from a 20% lead last time.

https://www.postandcourier.com/poli...cle_d5064164-be11-11e9-8de3-03c1577ccfa6.html

Headline there is virtually no change.

 

[PEB]

Bernie Sanders just hammered Israel for blocking the two moderate Congress persons. He said if they have a problem denying two seated members of Congress maybe we should rethink our policy of giving 3 billion or more a year to Israel. They quickly moved to another topic.

 

[Natty Dread]

Im sure criminals who engage in gun violence are eagerly awaiting new and more strict rules.

 

[OhBam]

Canadian checking in, are your polls going to attempt to be accurate this time? Or will we get 70/30 prediction again?

Depending on the criteria that you allow for "meddling" or "tampering" and all the hubbub about those darn "Rooskies", wouldn't you be able to charge Canada, Mexico, and all of Europe for tampering in the Gore-Bush election in favour of Gore? Assuming the criteria is identically pathetic.