Who will challenge Trump? Who you like?

[Matthew Strongin]

You're just flat out wrong

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...#enacted_ex=on

You had it filtered down to just those enacted. Here's the same search, but for anything sponsored: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...p36Yi4ZRm0UE#_

421 results.

[fastupslowdown]

You had it filtered down to just those enacted. Here's the same search, but for anything sponsored: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...p36Yi4ZRm0UE#_

421 results.

I should have said it better. How many pieces of legislation has sanders sponsored that got passed. while in the senate. so as president he'd suggest legislation that nobody votes on either?

[Matthew Strongin]

I should have said it better. How many pieces of legislation has sanders sponsored that got passed. while in the senate. so as president he'd suggest legislation that nobody votes on either?

I see your point, but there are also a ton of others on that site with just as few pieces of legislation passed. At quick glance, the number of congressfolks with double digit enacted legislation is pretty low.

[fastupslowdown]

I see your point, but there are also a ton of others on that site with just as few pieces of legislation passed. At quick glance, the number of congressfolks with double digit enacted legislation is pretty low.

I'm against junior senators in general. i prefer governors with executive experience. My Sanders criticism could easily have applied to Barack Obama. I think Romney in hindsight would have been a better choice

[thollandpe]

You're just flat out wrong

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...#enacted_ex=on

You're right and I was wrong, it's congress.gov. Sorry. But it's still 934 sponsored bills and 6246 cosponsored bills.

Bernard Sanders | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

I stand by my assertion that painting Sanders as an ineffective legislator is bullshit.

Why would you count only bills that were sponsored, not cosponsored, and only those that were enacted? Do you really consider that the one measure of a senator's effectiveness?

[davids]

Create Your Own Thomas Friedman Op-Ed Column - McSweeney’s Internet Tendency

Despite his incessant douchebaggery, based on the provided quote Friedman is right on this one. (I'm not creating a free account or logging in to read it).

My moderate democrat in-laws reside near you, David, and find Senator Warren hard to take. They (like me) admire Senator Sanders for his sincerity, but struggle to support a candidate who has no clue what his proposals will cost. That's not a Faux News talking point - that's rabid conservative Anderson Cooper this Sunday on 60 Minutes:

"How much will that cost?” Cooper asked.

“Obviously, those are expensive propositions, but we have done our best on issue after issue – in paying for them,” Sanders responded.

“Do you know how all – how much though?” Cooper pressed. “I mean, do you have a price tag for all of this?”

“We do. I mean, you know, and, and, the price tag is – it will be substantially less than letting the current system go,” Sanders responded. “I think it’s about $30 trillion.”

“That’s just for Medicare for All, you’re talking about?” Cooper continued. “Do you have a price tag for all of these things?”

“No, I don’t,” Sanders responded. “We try to – no, you mentioned making public colleges and universities tuition free and cancelling all student debt, that’s correct. That’s what I want to do. We pay for that through a modest tax on Wall Street speculation.”

“But you say you don’t know what the total price is, but you know how it’s gonna be paid for. How do you know it’s gonna be paid for if you don’t know how much the price is?” Cooper pressed.

“Well, I can’t, you know, I can’t rattle off to you every nickel and every dime,” Sanders responded. “But we have accounted for, you – you talked about Medicare for All. We have options out there that will pay for it.”

Jesus wept.

Friedman is right that the progressives can't win without the moderates, and the moderates won't win because if Sanders isn't the nominee the progressives will feel (again) slighted by the DNC, and a small but significant number of them will "punish" the DNC by refusing to turn out for a nominee they consider to be a sell-out.

Don't get it twisted; I'm a conservative and some part of me enjoys this. But I am being honest when I say I wish the DNC were better organized. A strong DNC makes the GOP wary of going too far off the rails, and when there's no viable threat from the DNC the GOP can run idiots like the Current Guy with no fear of losing. Even if they lose, a strong DNC makes for a moderate Republican administration. A shitshow DNC results in President Trump. For the love of all that's good and decent, please put James Carville in charge of something ASAP.

I don't have to agree with him to enjoy reading his thoughts.

Me? I'm supporting Warren for as long as she's contending. She made the political mistake of actually trying to provide an answer to AC's question.

But I do fear that either of these progressives (Bernie or Elizabeth) will be too lefty for the vast middle. Just as I worry that Bloomberg, Biden or Buttegieg (or Klobuchar - sorry Amy!) will be too centrists for a growing cohort of increasingly pissed-off marginalized Americans. So what Friedman says rings true. Create that team under the Dem's tent and they could simply crush Trump. And actually create some effective laws and policies that could pull this great nation back onto the rails.

[Corso]

Bernie sort of believes in Capitalism, no?

How Bernie Sanders, The Socialist Senator, Amassed A $2.5 Million Fortune

But falls waaaaay behind "fair share" Liz:

How Elizabeth Warren Built A $12 Million Fortune

[mzilliox]

Bernie sort of believes in Capitalism, no?

How Bernie Sanders, The Socialist Senator, Amassed A $2.5 Million Fortune

But falls waaaaay behind "fair share" Liz:

How Elizabeth Warren Built A $12 Million Fortune

yes, they both like capitalism, they both are here right now in this system. the propaganda about them being socialists is false? we dont have to worry about them destroying the american way of life after all? whats your point?

[davids]

Bernie sort of believes in Capitalism, no?

How Bernie Sanders, The Socialist Senator, Amassed A $2.5 Million Fortune

But falls waaaaay behind "fair share" Liz:

How Elizabeth Warren Built A $12 Million Fortune

Do you have a point? Particularly regarding our senator, who famously said:

"I am a capitalist. Come on. I believe in markets. What I don’t believe in is theft, what I don’t believe in is cheating. That’s where the difference is. I love what markets can do, I love what functioning economies can do. They are what make us rich, they are what create opportunity. But only fair markets, markets with rules. Markets without rules is about the rich take it all, it’s about the powerful get all of it. And that’s what’s gone wrong in America."

So I don't even begin to buy whatever you're trying to sell.

We should also distinguish between socialism and communism. Sanders is not a communist and has never been a communist.

[fastupslowdown]

Do you have a point? Particularly regarding our senator, who famously said:

"I am a capitalist. Come on. I believe in markets. What I don’t believe in is theft, what I don’t believe in is cheating. That’s where the difference is. I love what markets can do, I love what functioning economies can do. They are what make us rich, they are what create opportunity. But only fair markets, markets with rules. Markets without rules is about the rich take it all, it’s about the powerful get all of it. And that’s what’s gone wrong in America."

So I don't even begin to buy whatever you're trying to sell.

We should also distinguish between socialism and communism. Sanders is not a communist and has never been a communist.

Really depends on what he considers theft. He might decide anytime a worker doesn't share in the profits, its theft

[Matthew Strongin]

Let's also be honest about where the real issues with wealth accumulation lie. They're not with 77 year olds that have 2.5M in the bank after a successful, multi-faceted career. Jeff Bezos makes that much money roughly every 15 minutes. Is it a lot of money? Sure. Does it create a nice clickbait headline when paired with the term "Socialist"? Absolutely. It actually does two things...it implies that Sanders is a hypocrite and that he's a full-stop "Socialist." Neither of which are true.

[fastupslowdown]

Let's also be honest about where the real issues with wealth accumulation lie. They're not with 77 year olds that have 2.5M in the bank after a successful, multi-faceted career. Jeff Bezos makes that much money roughly every 15 minutes. Is it a lot of money? Sure. Does it create a nice clickbait headline when paired with the term "Socialist"? Absolutely. It actually does two things...it implies that Sanders is a hypocrite and that he's a full-stop "Socialist." Neither of which are true.

I don't really have a problem with a Mike Bloomberg or a Bill Gates who are leaving it all to charity. I have more an issue with a tax code that allows companies to earn a profit and not pay taxes or families to pass wealth from one generation to the next. At least a Jeff Bezos, a Mike Bloomberg and a Warren Buffet are building businesses , employing thousands and contributing to GDP(and not just by consumption but by production). In the meantime they donate huge sums to charity. I think that's a good thing. -Mike G

[Matthew Strongin]

I don't really have a problem with a Mike Bloomberg or a Bill Gates who are leaving it all to charity. I have more an issue with a tax code that allows companies to earn a profit and not pay taxes or families to pass wealth from one generation to the next. At least a Jeff Bezos, a Mike Bloomberg and a Warren Buffet are building businesses , employing thousands and contributing to GDP(and not just by consumption but by production). In the meantime they donate huge sums to charity. I think that's a good thing. -Mike G

Don't misinterpret my comment for an indictment of the wealthy. I just think it's absurd to paint a picture of someone Bernie Sanders's age having 2.5M after a lifetime of work as being rich compared with the enormous group of people in this country who make that in a year, or a month, or a week... Will Bernie be very comfortable in retirement and maybe have a little to bequeath, sure. But it's not like the dude is lighting cigars with benjamins or swimming in a vault like Scrooge McDuck.

Also, though OT from this thread and maybe a better conversation elsewhere, but Bezos's employment practices aren't exactly something to applaud.

[mzilliox]

Let's also be honest about where the real issues with wealth accumulation lie. They're not with 77 year olds that have 2.5M in the bank after a successful, multi-faceted career. Jeff Bezos makes that much money roughly every 15 minutes. Is it a lot of money? Sure. Does it create a nice clickbait headline when paired with the term "Socialist"? Absolutely. It actually does two things...it implies that Sanders is a hypocrite and that he's a full-stop "Socialist." Neither of which are true.

no, its actually not at all a good net worth for a person that age in this country. rich people would balk at that sum. thats what the average voter doesnt quite seem to understand. and what ever happened to subtlety and nuance in this country. just because the current guy is a get what you see boor, doesnt mean everyone is. one can philosophically believe not sharing profit with workers is theft and still go on to support or write policy that is not so radical, but that is still aimed at more democracy in the workplace. it doesnt have to be so black and white. the best things in life are in the grey somewhere, and thats also where comprimise happens, which after all is what this is all about. Bernies not gonna pass every idea he has, why pretend he will? he will compromise on all of them, and we will all be better off for it. the economy will carry on at approx 2% GDP, and maybe we will spend less on war and more on ourselves... sounds ok

[davids]

Really depends on what he considers theft. He might decide anytime a worker doesn't share in the profits, its theft

Senator Warren is a "she". And her public record on these issues is pretty damn easy to find. So I won't even comment on your second sentence.

I don't really have a problem with a Mike Bloomberg or a Bill Gates who are leaving it all to charity. I have more an issue with a tax code that allows companies to earn a profit and not pay taxes or families to pass wealth from one generation to the next. At least a Jeff Bezos, a Mike Bloomberg and a Warren Buffet are building businesses , employing thousands and contributing to GDP(and not just by consumption but by production). In the meantime they donate huge sums to charity. I think that's a good thing. -Mike G

I agree, to the extent that individuals should be able to grow wealthy from their efforts. There are many more facets to this though.

• US tax policy favors the wealthy. We are taxed at a higher rate on earned income than on investment income. WTF?
• The difference between a net worth of $2.5M or $12.5M and the billions of a Bezos, Bloomberg, Zuckerberg or Adelson are night and day. Just because 'million' and 'billion' sound similar doesn't mean they are.
• Huge voluntary charitable donations are a poor substitute, IMHO, for a national policy of (1) raising more tax revenues from the very wealthy and (2) allocating those revenues to programs selected by our elected representatives. Hey, I like that Bloomberg gives tons of money to support stricter gun control, but I hate that Adelson gives his money to prop up a criminal racist Israeli PM. Your results probably vary, but I think you'll see my point: It's rich people having undue sway on social policy and public works.
• If Amazon (to pick on an obvious target) paid higher taxes on their earnings maybe they'd choose to share more of those with their underpaid overworked employees.

I could go one and on.

[fastupslowdown]

Don't misinterpret my comment for an indictment of the wealthy. I just think it's absurd to paint a picture of someone Bernie Sanders's age having 2.5M after a lifetime of work as being rich compared with the enormous group of people in this country who make that in a year, or a month, or a week... Will Bernie be very comfortable in retirement and maybe have a little to bequeath, sure. But it's not like the dude is lighting cigars with benjamins or swimming in a vault like Scrooge McDuck.

Also, though OT from this thread and maybe a better conversation elsewhere, but Bezos's employment practices aren't exactly something to applaud.

I think the attacks on Sanders that bring up his book or homes is silly. I just think the U.S. has a pretty good record of business start-ups that have become hugely successful. What I think will endanger that is the student loan crisis which prevents housing formation and out of control debt and banks that have rewritten the laws that really discourage chapter 11 etc.

[bigbill]

Honestly, at this point, I view all the plans from Sanders and Warren as concept vehicles at a car show. You display the new F-150 all electric with gull wing doors, power tailgate, 24" wheels, flared fenders, off road package, on a rotating stage with a couple of attractive models standing next to it. What actually hits the showroom floor the next year is much more practical and less flashy, but the car show created the buzz and pushed the envelope on technology, some of which will appear in the final model. I have zero issues with far reaching proposals because they create the conversation that moves us out of our comfort zone and brings innovation. Maybe we get 50% of Medicare for all to start, a certain percentage of student debt cancelled or reduced, etc. The candidates appeal to their base to get nominated, then they move towards the center for the general election. All or nothing at that point is a losing proposition.

[King Of Dirk]

It is not on the Democratic Party to fix what ails the GOP.

No, it's not. And for those playing at home, at no point did I suggest it is. But at this point the Democrats should be praying for pestilence; if COVID-19 doesn't melt the economy this race isn't going to be close.

You and I both know there are severe structural problems with the U.S. economy, but the stupids don't get that and they outnumber us handily. I'm on the record that I don't like "my team's" horse, so telling me he's nuts isn't moving the needle. I know that. But while you're quite right that it's not the Democrats' problem, it is their problem when their prospective nominee tries to carry Florida in a quest for 270 while yammering on about the Late Great Fidel Castro. There's obtuse, and then there's stupid. While Bernie is a long, long way from dumb, that comment gives Trump the same kind of soundbite that cost Hillary Ohio with the "we're going to put a lot of coal miners out of work" shit. She was taken out of context...and again you and I both know it. Ditto Bernie's comments on Castro. But it won't matter when it's played on a loop all September and October long.

In the meantime, Trump will make 12 times as many gaffes - which his ardent supporters will completely ignore even when presented them on a flat screen platter by half a billion dollars of Bloomberg ads.

Texas has early voting for our primary. I voted against Trump. I'll do it again in November. It's not on me to fix what ails the Democrats - a party that for all its big talk has a bunch of rich old white people running to challenge a rich old white dude. Sorry - I forgot Pete. Just rich and white, not old. Oh, and I forgot Liz - just old and rich, not...wait, what's she claiming to be these days?

If you could run Barack again he'd win. No doubt. You're concerned with 30 years of GOP foolishness? He's the only exciting and charismatic candidate the democrats have run since 1960. Clinton certainly grew into the role and was unbeatable in 1996, but he never leaves Arkansas but for Ross Perot in 1992.

Julian Castro was the answer. He had a real chance at turning 38 red EVs blue, and that's game over for the GOP. Maybe adding him to the ticket as VP will do y'all some good.

I'm left trying to find kernels of good news from my side. I've long believed that the U.S. and India should be far closer, and indeed have much in common as English-speaking former Brit colonies. India will win the demographic war with China, eventually becoming the world's second largest market. But Trump's embrace of Modi is, well, embarrassing. As usual, he's stumbled into something I like while simultaneously making me wish he'd Just Stop Talking.

[BBB]

So far in this thread we've had (and I'll paraphrase a little): capitalism and the accumulation of wealth (specifically lots of it) being part of what makes the USA the greatest country in the world and, on the flipside, a growing cohort of pissed off marginalised Americans.

It seems the two notions cannot comfortably co-exist (setting aside the hubristic claim of greatest in the world). You can't be the greatest if your people are mariginalised and pissed off (or if the people exercising their right to own a semi-automatic rifle and gun down as many people as possible, potentially because they are marginalised and pissed off).

It seems, to me at least, that people are pissed off or marginalised because of the workings of the capitalist system and see excessive wealth as a symptom of the problem. Policies that attempt to bridge that divide, rather than pandering to one side or the other are going to gain the most traction. People or companies should be able to make money off their endeavours, but ultimately they should be taxed at an appropriate rate to ensure funds are delivered back into the system to bring the less fortunate (whether they are marginalised or pissed off or not) along. This can be done by funnelling money into areas such as health, education and infrastructure.

I think Bill is right. Ultimately the center is where elections are won and lost. True there is lots of divsion in western societies at the moment, but being too far either left or right (as much as I dislike those terms) is not a prescription for long term political or policy success.

[theflashunc]

No, it's not. And for those playing at home, at no point did I suggest it is. But at this point the Democrats should be praying for pestilence; if COVID-19 doesn't melt the economy this race isn't going to be close.

You and I both know there are severe structural problems with the U.S. economy, but the stupids don't get that and they outnumber us handily. I'm on the record that I don't like "my team's" horse, so telling me he's nuts isn't moving the needle. I know that. But while you're quite right that it's not the Democrats' problem, it is their problem when their prospective nominee tries to carry Florida in a quest for 270 while yammering on about the Late Great Fidel Castro. There's obtuse, and then there's stupid. While Bernie is a long, long way from dumb, that comment gives Trump the same kind of soundbite that cost Hillary Ohio with the "we're going to put a lot of coal miners out of work" shit. She was taken out of context...and again you and I both know it. Ditto Bernie's comments on Castro. But it won't matter when it's played on a loop all September and October long.

In the meantime, Trump will make 12 times as many gaffes - which his ardent supporters will completely ignore even when presented them on a flat screen platter by half a billion dollars of Bloomberg ads.

Texas has early voting for our primary. I voted against Trump. I'll do it again in November. It's not on me to fix what ails the Democrats - a party that for all its big talk has a bunch of rich old white people running to challenge a rich old white dude. Sorry - I forgot Pete. Just rich and white, not old. Oh, and I forgot Liz - just old and rich, not...wait, what's she claiming to be these days?

If you could run Barack again he'd win. No doubt. You're concerned with 30 years of GOP foolishness? He's the only exciting and charismatic candidate the democrats have run since 1960. Clinton certainly grew into the role and was unbeatable in 1996, but he never leaves Arkansas but for Ross Perot in 1992.

Julian Castro was the answer. He had a real chance at turning 38 red EVs blue, and that's game over for the GOP. Maybe adding him to the ticket as VP will do y'all some good.

I'm left trying to find kernels of good news from my side. I've long believed that the U.S. and India should be far closer, and indeed have much in common as English-speaking former Brit colonies. India will win the demographic war with China, eventually becoming the world's second largest market. But Trump's embrace of Modi is, well, embarrassing. As usual, he's stumbled into something I like while simultaneously making me wish he'd Just Stop Talking.

You did. If that wasn't your intent then I'd welcome clarifying your original point. You claimed a strong Democratic party would lead to a more moderate GOP. There's 40 years of evidence this is not the case. The GOP has been on a slow march to where it is now. There's no counterweight when GOP voters live in the Fox News ecosystem and never leave it.

I agree the Democrats have spent more time and effort trying to make room for Bloomberg than they ever did Harris, Castro, and O'Rourke. Instead they were too busy with trying to launch the Biden coronation party.