5th Democratic Primary Debate Discussion

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

3 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

"Extreme ideology"? Wanting a universal healthcare system that guarantees healthcare to all Americans as a right, a plan similar to what nearly every other industrialized country in the world has, is an extreme position? Wanting to eliminate poverty is an extreme position? Wanting to avoid electing another centrist that will continue to kill Palestinians and back right-wing coups in Latin America and South America and kill innocent people in the Middle East with drone bombs is "extreme"?

Wanting what other Western nations have is extreme to some people. I don't get it. I'd prefer if people just said "We don't want massive change, we like some or all of the status quo" instead of pretending to be extremely progressive. 

[Economy 52,861]

11 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Are people really trying to argue that Progressives are wrong for being right...?

I get anger or frustration and the idea that we might be seen as arrogant, elitist, or even condescending, But have you ever considered that people like myself (I can't really speak for anyone) have faith in our beliefs because we extremely vet them, and not because of some blind faith that we must always be right and everyone who is wrong is just stupid? I don't think anyone I argue with is stupid, and its unproductive to ever call them that. At most, they are ignorant, as in, uninformed, misinformed, etc. That's not an inherently negative position to be in. I am ignorant about many things. It isn't tunnel vision, or absolute rejection of other perspectives, it is actived and informed rejections of those ideas that I have personally already considered. I used to believe every single thing that some users here who support Buttigieg did, and I liked him as well when he first announced for the exact reasons you all claim to..

and then I did some digging and soul searching

and NOW I dislike him. Is that so crazy a concept? Or is it really just an argument about "tone" - if I am not overly nice and walk you through everything kindly, it discredits the merits of the position. I don't think I personally attack people unless what they are saying is like, offensive and shouldn't be left unopposed, and I'm long winded in my explanations for sure, but you really sell yourselves short if you refuse to engage with someone's opinion. I also know that no matter how kindly or succinctly or politely someone makes a point on here, it will be met with the same level of disdain. 

I would @ people, but I'll get accused of things, so I won't. Still, someone feel free to respond.

Ur basically still saying your right and they are wrong because they are unknowledgeable if they don't have the same opinion as you

 

I do not support some very progressive policies especially in economics and misinformed is the last thing I'd consider myself

 

I genuinely just don't believe many of Bernie's plans will work as well as they are intended to

[Othon 34,299]

12 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Or is it really just an argument about "tone" - if I am not overly nice and walk you through everything kindly, it discredits the merits of the position. I don't think I personally attack people unless what they are saying is like, offensive and shouldn't be left unopposed, and I'm long winded in my explanations for sure, but you really sell yourselves short if you refuse to engage with someone's opinion. I also know that no matter how kindly or succinctly or politely someone makes a point on here, it will be met with the same level of disdain. 

Your entire post was totally on point, but this bit is really important.

At the end of the day, I do not have the time or the energy to attempt to walk a centrist through the substance of the issues when I KNOW that they're not going to listen to me. I've tried with the centrists in this thread on so, so many occasions and they never listen to me at all, and resort to insults and tone policing when I push them on the substance of what they said. 

This isn't an issue with us being too dismissive or too aggressive when arguing with centrists. They just want us to pretend as if it's totally fine to not engage with policy distinctions or a candidate's record and to mock or attack or (as you put it) treat arguments from the left with disdain, and want us to refuse to criticize them for doing so.

It's totally unacceptable, and it's an argument entirely being made in bad faith. They just want us to shut up and refuse to criticize them or the democratic candidates that they like on a superficial level.

[Economy 52,861]

3 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Your entire post was totally on point, but this bit is really important.

At the end of the day, I do not have the time or the energy to attempt to walk a centrist through the substance of the issues when I KNOW that they're not going to listen to me. I've tried with the centrists in this thread on so, so many occasions and they never listen to me at all, and resort to insults and tone policing when I push them on the substance of what they said. 

This isn't an issue with us being too dismissive or too aggressive when arguing with centrists. They just want us to pretend as if it's totally fine to not engage with policy distinctions or a candidate's record and to mock or attack or (as you put it) treat arguments from the left with disdain, to refuse to criticize them for doing so.

It's totally unacceptable, and it's an argument entirely being made in bad faith. They just want us to shut up and refuse to criticize them or the democratic candidates that they like on a superficial level.

Honestly a lot of centrists can say the same of a lot of leftists

 

A lot of leftists reply back in anger so fast and aggressively before there's even a chance to have any discussion

 

Im generalizing tho

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

Ur basically still saying your right and they are wrong because they are unknowledgeable if they don't have the same opinion as you

 

I do not support some very progressive policies especially in economics and misinformed is the last thing I'd consider myself

 

I genuinely just don't believe many of Bernie's plans will work as well as they are intended to

You're one of the FEW people on here who is honest and says "I don't agree with X progressive policy" and I appreciate it SO MUCH. 

People just need to be honest. 

I'm tired of people preaching about all the progress they want and just sticking to the same old thing. If that's what you want just say it. 

Or if you think that is the way to achieve progress say it and explain why. 

Seriously, I am open to listening to what more moderates want. 

What irks me is people like Joe Biden who claim to want change and spew ridiculous outdated ideas. 

People like Amy Klobuchar are HONEST and she says she's a centrist and doesn't agree on things with people like Bernie. She promises policies and changes without pretending to be the beacon of progress. I may not agree with her but this is what I've noticed about her. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

11 minutes ago, Economy said:

Ur basically still saying your right and they are wrong

I do not support some very progressive policies especially in economics and misinformed is the last thing I'd consider myself

I genuinely just don't believe many of Bernie's plans will work as well as they are intended to

Follow me through this:

Some opinions are informed by facts and some are not. Is that a controversial statement? I don't think so, but maybe you do so I'm asking. Is this a condescending point to make? Maybe, but I really truly cannot change this.

 I personally believe that our beliefs should be informed by reality, facts, etc. I think what we should be arguing about, disagreeing with, etc. should be substantive. When I argue with someone who has an opinion that is not informed by facts (or is actively disproven by facts), it is hard to not appear like I'm saying "I'm right and you are wrong" 

Which is why the discussion shifts to - Okay, let's talk about the facts

...And then people actively refuse to do so  

For example, why don't you think those plans will work as intended? If your response is "I just don't" then any response I make will appear like "I'm saying I'm right and you are wrong", but if your response is "X policy was implemented in X way in this country and it didn't work" THEN I can give you a sufficient response like "That is different because our gdp is blah blah blah" and THEN we are having a productive disagreement. But if this cuts off at the first stage, its a waste of both of our times.

[Whispering 18,865]

Finale Speaking Times:

Elizabeth Warren 13:26

Pete Buttigieg 12:46

Joe Biden 12:38

Bernie Sanders 11:45

Cory Booker 11:31

Kamala Harris 11:31

Amy Klobuchar 10:43

Tulsi Gabbard 09:14

Tom Steyer 08:21

Andrew Yang 06:53

 

Yang is a man of few words. I really liked his closing statement. 

He needs to be in someone’s cabinet, for sure! 

[Bonkers 30,860]

2 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Finale Speaking Times:

Elizabeth Warren 13:26

Pete Buttigieg 12:46

Joe Biden 12:38

Bernie Sanders 11:45

Cory Booker 11:31

Kamala Harris 11:31

Amy Klobuchar 10:43

Tulsi Gabbard 09:14

Tom Steyer 08:21

Andrew Yang 06:53

 

Yang is a man of few words. I really liked his closing statement. 

He needs to be in someone’s cabinet, for sure! 

He did great tonight, I was thinking the same thing, he'd maybe be an amazing secretary of education.  Something that would embrace his new thinking.  

I'd vote for any candidate that would be put Maryanne Williamson in charge of Space Force, I just think it would be a good subject of conversation.

[Economy 52,861]

1 minute ago, Morphine Prince said:

You're one of the FEW people on here who is honest and says "I don't agree with X progressive policy" and I appreciate it SO MUCH. 

People just need to be honest. 

I'm tired of people preaching about all the progress they want and just sticking to the same old thing. If that's what you want just say it. 

Or if you think that is the way to achieve progress say it and explain why. 

Seriously, I am open to listening to what more moderates want. 

What irks me is people like Joe Biden who claim to want change and spew ridiculous outdated ideas. 

People like Amy Klobuchar are HONEST and she says she's a centrist and doesn't agree on things with people like Bernie. She promises policies and changes without pretending to be the beacon of progress. I may not agree with her but this is what I've noticed about her. 

My view tbh is not left or right but im not even sure u can truly call it centrist

 

I have a unique view on politics and I think the reason no party or candidate is ever the answer to everything is because the answer to me is all political spectrums in one

 

There's successful and unsuccessful capitalist and socialist nation's alike. More important than which strategy u use is also HOW competently you implement it

 

Everything has pros and cons and whether it has a net positive or net negative impact is hard to pinpoint at times

 

What works in one circumstance may not work in another circumstance. 

 

A right wing party will wanna cut taxes to stimulate economy while a left wing party will wanna spend more instead of the private sector. Neither is right or wrong. Depends where u are on the economic cycle. If economy is good and confidence high tax cuts will encourage investment but when confidence is low government spending may work better because consumer and businesses won't

 

Here in Ontario for example there was such debate about the big minimum wage hike with leftists saying it would boost economy by increasing wages and consumption and right wing saying it would cause a recession from stalled labor hiring

 

Neither happened. The positives and negatives largely cancelled each other out and economic growth trends didn't change like at all

 

You have to look at EVERYTHING. Sometimes a left wing approach for something in a circumstance may work better. Other times a right wing approach may work better depending what the root cause in a problem is

 

Right wingers only care for business and wealthy needs. Leftists only focus on the people mostly, and centrists are right in the middle and don't fully take sides (even when in some circumstances u need to take a side)

 

I don't think policy is looked at from the big picture and all the offsets considered to see if something is good on a net basis or not

 

Political ideologies don't allow for much flexibility and that's a problem

 

I don't identify with any party or left or right wing because of this.

My opinion is that the entire political spectrum has valid points and we need to consider all of them and take the best for each situation

 

The current status quo of how politics works however does not allow for that

[Bonkers 30,860]

 

Spoiler

 

[Othon 34,299]

Before I go, I just want to point out that the same people in here going after the left and claiming that we're not civil enough are all calling us "far left clowns" or positively engaging with posts including that insult.

This is how I know that this entire back and forth about civility is a lie. They're perfectly fine attacking the left or outright insulting the several Sanders supporters in here while they claim that challenging them on policy is outrageous and out of line. None of this means anything. Politics is a team sport to these people and they want the left to stay silent. That's it. 

[Othon 34,299]

4 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

 

  Hide contents

 

Dude, the link in that tweet literally leads to the Rick Roll video. 

Come on. This is why we find engaging with you guys exhausting.

[Bonkers 30,860]

7 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Dude, the link in that tweet literally leads to the Rick Roll video. 

Come on. This is why we find engaging with you guys exhausting.

That's pretty funny, actually.  My mistake.  But no, you're exhausted by your own self righteous indignation and from all those "sad" reactions you gave out today.    And you posted a great deal of inaccuracies yourself 

Also, I'm high, so I didn't check it and it looked about right except for Harris had a much better night than 3%

[Economy 52,861]

48 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Follow me through this:

Some opinions are informed by facts and some are not. Is that a controversial statement? I don't think so, but maybe you do so I'm asking. Is this a condescending point to make? Maybe, but I really truly cannot change this.

 I personally believe that our beliefs should be informed by reality, facts, etc. I think what we should be arguing about, disagreeing with, etc. should be substantive. When I argue with someone who has an opinion that is not informed by facts (or is actively disproven by facts), it is hard to not appear like I'm saying "I'm right and you are wrong" 

Which is why the discussion shifts to - Okay, let's talk about the facts

...And then people actively refuse to do so  

For example, why don't you think those plans will work as intended? If your response is "I just don't" then any response I make will appear like "I'm saying I'm right and you are wrong", but if your response is "X policy was implemented in X way in this country and it didn't work" THEN I can give you a sufficient response like "That is different because our gdp is blah blah blah" and THEN we are having a productive disagreement. But if this cuts off at the first stage, its a waste of both of our times.

That's far more reasonable than many make it come across good to know.

 

To answer ur question, one major plan I think won't work as intended is the wealth tax (especially Bernie's high version of it)

 

A lighter version like Warren's could maybe work if she can overcome failures like in Europe. Most nation's in Europe that tried it failed (only 3 still have it like Spain and budget issues and inequality issues haven't been solved with it) as the cost to enforce it was quite high, evasion was high as well... Some assets were also very hard to value.

 

They already addressed the issue of ppl with high assets but low cash (like farmers) by having the starting threshold of the tax much higher than in Europe ($20M for sanders and $50M for Warren) this unlikely to have that issue on that department. 

 

But there's the issue of the amount. Warren's version might be ok but Bernie's 8% will require significant liquidation of assets like stocks and bonds in order for billionaires to comply with their tax obligations every year... This will put downward pressure on stock valuations and that means the taxable base will struggle just to stay flat (8% gains is already a strong year on the stock market) and quite likely will result in diminishing tax revenue over the years

 

Struggling stocks would also negatively impact capital gains taxes and hurt people's pension funds which would at least in part neutralize some of the positive benefits if a wealth tax

 

I know he is also a proposer of large corporate tax hikes. I think that's a mistake. A partial reversal of Trump's exxagerated tax cuts, fine...

 

But there is not only international competitiveness to consider but also the fact that I think taxing corporations is taxing the rich is a bit if a misconception

 

Not all shareholders are rich (normal ppl own shares in corporations too even if it's just in retirement funds)... Also not all corporations are flooded in money. As an investor who used to buy stocks I knew all their stats... While corporations like Apple with insane profit margins of 27% of revenue exist, they are outliers not the norm. There's lots of corporations with profit margins of only 5% to 8% of revenue... A big tax hike on them could result on higher prices being passed on to consumers and that's a tax on everyone not just the rich

 

I think if u wanna tax the rich directly a hike in capital gains taxes (especially on gains above a certain threshold because investments is how the very rich compound their wealth fast sitting on their butts) is more effective because then u are targeting ONLY the rich individuals. High corporate taxes would end up taxing everyone else along with it so it's better to go after individuals themselves, the very large shareholders

[Economy 52,861]

20 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Before I go, I just want to point out that the same people in here going after the left and claiming that we're not civil enough are all calling us "far left clowns" or positively engaging with posts including that insult.

This is how I know that this entire back and forth about civility is a lie. They're perfectly fine attacking the left or outright insulting the several Sanders supporters in here while they claim that challenging them on policy is outrageous and out of line. None of this means anything. Politics is a team sport to these people and they want the left to stay silent. That's it. 

I haven't read all 20 pages cuz I came to this discussion late. If someone called u a far left clown that's not nice

 

If someone simply said far left (like I did) that's not an insult. That's a part of the political spectrum... The most u could do is disagree that u belong to that part of the spectrum but seeing as u took it personally I take it u do consider urself in that political affiliation

 

I don't know if I were referring to me or if it past comments but on my end that was not meant as an insult