Jump to content

U.S. House OH-11

sabotage619
in Ohio Politics

Featured Replies

Cancelling student debt is not an extreme idea.

23 minutes ago, andrew0816 said:

@seicerMy bad, when you mentioned "soicialism" I thought you meant the abolition of private property and the state take over of the means of production, not the misinterpretation of policies and use of fearmongering talking points.

 

 

Dude--you're defining communism, not socialism.

1 hour ago, gottaplan said:

So you dont think there was deliberate and focused efforts by the DNC to get Biden the win and not Sanders?

 

Who is the DNC? The DNC is a decentralized and loosely organized collection of state and local parties made up of average Joe precinct execs and party activists. You act like it is some overarching, all controlling corporation or something. 

 

I voted for Bernie. I think it is nonsensical to say that the primary was rigged against him. We have to stop with this nonsense.

The notion that outside money is responsible for Brown's win is grating, and shows disdain for voters and their agency.  In an election with 15% turnout, I think the few that voted had a pretty good idea of what they wanted.  

8 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

Cancelling student debt is not an extreme idea.

 

It is to the millions of us that took it on student loan debt and paid it.  

 

I'm not opposed to cancelling it--if you sign on for a four year hitch in the army etc.   Or maybe we should do a Depression-era program like Civilian Conservation Corps?   

18 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

Cancelling student debt is not an extreme idea.

 

I had student debt and paid it off just fine. No one holds a gun to your head to sign up for what is essentially long-term debt and choose a major with no economic outcome. Taxpayers should not bail out people's bad decisions. The majority do not support full-on debt forgiveness.

Correct.  I am not sure that nina is actually a democrat.  Bernie is not a democrat.  If you can’t inspire your base to vote for you in a primary you do not deserve to win. She raised $4 million to Shontel’s $2 million.  Someone blasted the area with negative tv ads of Shontel.  I barely watch tv and saw it multiple times over the last month.  Negative ads are supposed to be used to persuade people not to vote for a person.  Perhaps Shontel would’ve won in a landslide except for all the negative ads.  

22 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

It is to the millions of us that took it on student loan debt and paid it.  

 

I'm not opposed to cancelling it--if you sign on for a four year hitch in the army etc.   Or maybe we should do a Depression-era program like Civilian Conservation Corps?   

 

That's just indentured servitude with extra steps. Not to mention the poverty draft, people living in poverty are much more likely to join the military and be killed or get some lifelong disability than more well off people. It ends up being a pretty bad deal for those people because the VA is a mess and the military does everything it can to avoid paying for the treatment of those lifelong disabilities. 

 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, seicer said:

 

I had student debt and paid it off just fine. No one holds a gun to your head to sign up for what is essentially long-term debt and choose a major with no economic outcome. Taxpayers should not bail out people's bad decisions. The majority do not support full-on debt forgiveness.

 

There is significant pressure to go to college, I'm 22 and my entire life I've been told you have to go to college otherwise you'll end up flipping burgers your whole life. Everything in my high school was structured around going to college. Got told my freshman year I should sign up for at least on AP class because the more AP classes I have on my transcript the better my chances are to get into college. There was never any point before I went to college that any authority figures in my life told me to think about if college was really right thing for me. My situation turned out fine, college was the right thing for me and I don't have too much student debt. I wouldn't call it a bad decision, for a lot people there was an unquestioned assumption for their parents and others that they would go to college. It wasn't a question of if they would go to college, but where they would go. Also college degrees are required for basically all office jobs now and with the decline of union manufacturing jobs, there aren't many well paying jobs that are open to someone without a college degree. You say that taxpayers should bail people out, but I don't see that much of diffrence between canceling student debt and the government funding colleges. One of the reasons that the price of college has risen so dramatically is the cutting of funding from the government. 

Wait!  I thought the globalist cartels, Soros-led deep pocket money interests wanted the radical left to win these races.   I’m so confused. 

18 minutes ago, Henryefry said:

There is significant pressure to go to college, I'm 22 and my entire life I've been told you have to go to college otherwise you'll end up flipping burgers your whole life. Everything in my high school was structured around going to college. Got told my freshman year I should sign up for at least on AP class because the more AP classes I have on my transcript the better my chances are to get into college. There was never any point before I went to college that any authority figures in my life told me to think about if college was really right thing for me. My situation turned out fine, college was the right thing for me and I don't have too much student debt. I wouldn't call it a bad decision, for a lot people there was an unquestioned assumption for their parents and others that they would go to college. It wasn't a question of if they would go to college, but where they would go. Also college degrees are required for basically all office jobs now and with the decline of union manufacturing jobs, there aren't many well paying jobs that are open to someone without a college degree. You say that taxpayers should bail people out, but I don't see that much of diffrence between canceling student debt and the government funding colleges. One of the reasons that the price of college has risen so dramatically is the cutting of funding from the government. 

 

It's all marketing. I've worked for higher education institutions for 16 years and the things that we sell to get people to pay full-tuition $40,000 with a few "discounts" (versus just lowering the tuition for all) is borderline criminal. All so that you can graduate with your liberal arts degree and do absolutely nothing valuable with it. As long as you are employed - either through an internship or not, it counts towards our goal of having someone gainfully employed.

 

A better value is to go to a trade school or a vocational school. The return on investment is many times greater. But we'll never say that and we actively market against it. But in the end, it's a student's decision to spend the money to attend a college and obtain a degree that may or may not pay off in the long-run.

3 hours ago, Pugu said:
3 hours ago, andrew0816 said:

@seicerMy bad, when you mentioned "soicialism" I thought you meant the abolition of private property and the state take over of the means of production, not the misinterpretation of policies and use of fearmongering talking points.

 

Dude--you're defining communism, not socialism.

 

Google is free...and the definition I posted is similar to the Merriam-Webster definition, but like, whatever dude.

1 hour ago, seicer said:

 

It's all marketing. I've worked for higher education institutions for 16 years and the things that we sell to get people to pay full-tuition $40,000 with a few "discounts" (versus just lowering the tuition for all) is borderline criminal. All so that you can graduate with your liberal arts degree and do absolutely nothing valuable with it. As long as you are employed - either through an internship or not, it counts towards our goal of having someone gainfully employed.

 

A better value is to go to a trade school or a vocational school. The return on investment is many times greater. But we'll never say that and we actively market against it. But in the end, it's a student's decision to spend the money to attend a college and obtain a degree that may or may not pay off in the long-run.

 

People with liberal arts degrees actually do quite well in the workplace. The ROI on a liberal arts degree is damn good. The real problem with the student debt crisis is people that take out a lot of debt and don't finish a degree. Or get price gouged by a private online school.

 

But fundamentally, public education should be free. Saddling young people with tons of debt in their 20s and 30s is bad for society and bad for the economy. It leads to all kinds of horrible outcomes. So even if most that finish a degree end up ahead in the long run, the suffering they endure and the lost productivity we see during their younger years take a terrible toll on them and on our society as a whole.

I attended public undergraduate and graduate schools. I took out a lot of loans and I have them mostly paid off. But I would 100% support loan forgiveness because I'm not a sociopath that wants other people to suffer in an unjust system just because I did.

Certainly there are problems with student loans but free college is not the answer. It will only create a watered down dilluted product with costs that skyrocket more out of control than they already are. The point above is correct about the burden of student debt being absorbed by those who drop out or went to a phony online college. These issues can certainly be addressed however, in some cases the student needs to bear some responsibility. I know when I took out loans, I better finish my program because I understood being stuck with a mountain of debt and never earned a thing out of it.  

 

I do feel that the real problem is that there are a lot of young people that are pushed toward college when that should not be where they need to go. School districts are too focused on trying to raise their "college" numbers they do not care about what is best for the kids but more about how they can report that xx% of our kids went to 4 year college after graduation. Nobody follows up to see how many of them bombed out in the first semester. Focusing on directing students toward their right path should be what districts focus on instead of pushing them all to college and forcing them to take on student loans when that may not serve their best interests. High schools have a of the blame to share in these cases. Colleges too, because of the easy free money that they rely on and the fact they really do not have to show results to get that money, only enrollment.  In these cases, I do feel for many students. But in general, I do not feel for those who take student loans to get their education. It is their choice, and while it may lead to tougher times in their 20s and early 30s, if they are persistent, they will be much better off in their 40's and 50's

I agree with DEPACincy education should be free, we do it for K-12 why not college as well? 

 

2 hours ago, seicer said:

. But in the end, it's a student's decision to spend the money to attend a college and obtain a degree that may or may not pay off in the long-run.

 

My point is that while technically it's the student's choice, as you said other options are actively marketed against. Expecting 18 year olds to cut through the noise and marketing is setting them up for failure. 

4 hours ago, andrew0816 said:

@seicerMy bad, when you mentioned "soicialism" I thought you meant the abolition of private property and the state take over of the means of production, not the misinterpretation of policies and use of fearmongering talking points.

 

3 hours ago, Pugu said:

Dude--you're defining communism, not socialism.

 

38 minutes ago, andrew0816 said:

Google is free...and the definition I posted is similar to the Merriam-Webster definition, but like, whatever dude.

 

Yeah, whatever dude, maybe you should read what the link that you cite says, which is:

 

"The differences between communism and socialism are still debated, but generally English speakers use communism to talk about the political and economic ideologies that find their origin in Karl Marx’s theory of revolutionary socialism, which advocates a proletariat overthrow of capitalist structures within a society; societal and communal ownership and governance of the means of production; and the eventual establishment of a classless society. The most well-known expression of Marx’s theories is the 20th-century Bolshevism of the U.S.S.R., in which the state, through a single authoritarian party, controlled a society’s economic and social activities with the goal of realizing Marx’s theories. Socialism, meanwhile, is most often used in modern English to refer to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control...."

 

9 minutes ago, Henryefry said:

I agree with DEPACincy education should be free, we do it for K-12 why not college as well? 

 

 

My point is that while technically it's the student's choice, as you said other options are actively marketed against. Expecting 18 year olds to cut through the noise and marketing is setting them up for failure. 

1) Because K-12 is compulsory and college is not. It is up to the individual to choose their path

2) Along with the compulsory nature of it, k-12 involves minors whereas colelge is an adult decision (oftentimes the first adult decision the individual will make). You are not their parent, while some may make bad decisions, you have to allow them to make that decision. It is not for you to choose for them.

3) College is not for everyone. SHould be be encouraging college when the student is better served by other options (i.e. military, trade school, entering the workforce straight from HS, etc.) Paying for college incentivizes that when there are a lot of students that are not college material. Sending 100% of students to 4 year colleges from your district is really a giant disservice to the community and those students because 100% of those students do not belong in college (this is true regardless if you come from Indian Hill or Cleveland Public) 

4) The fact that people choose college allows colleges to operate with a lot of freedom and autonomy. If you make it free and essentially fully subsidized by taxpayers, you are going to open up pandoras box to a lot more viewpoint scrutiny. You are seeing a lot of the anti CRT protests now, just imagine if they are fully subidized by the state, you would see a lot more of that at the college level even. 

5) It would create significant challenges to many private colleges and may put many of them out of business.

6) It is going to water down the educational product as more and more resources will need to be devoted to students who do not need to be in college. 

 

There are many other reasons why free college may be a noble idea, but it is not a good idea.

Getting back to more the topic at hand, Bernie and Nina want to give government handouts of everything for all.  The Biden plan is to add 4 more years of education paid for by the government.  That is 2 years before kindergarten and 2 years after high school graduation.    I think this is very sensible for our time as we know how important preschool is.   It is also important to allow people to have community college and/or trade school options. 

Well, the private institution I work at now is being hammered by free four-year in-state tuition for the state schools. It's difficult to compete when something is being given away for free.

4 hours ago, seicer said:

You mean besides cancelling all student debt (that students signed into)? Or free healthcare? Or eliminating bail? Or stopping gentrification? Or continuing the ban on evictions, screwing over landlords?

 

Turner also said: "“I am going to work hard to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen to another progressive candidate again,” she said. “We didn’t lose this race, evil money manipulated and maligned this election.”"

 

She needs to be careful about her choice of words. Much of Brown's financial support came from the Israel lobby.

Eliminating bail?  Violent crime has spiraled out of control.  Instead of getting the criminals off the streets, they get to go about more illegal acts and maybe taking care of witnesses.

 

Ban evictions?  So landlords who are still stuck paying the bills--taxes, utilities, insurance and perhaps mortgages have to struggle making their ends meet and perhaps worse.  Once these squatters eventually leave the property, who expects it to be left in tip-top condition? The landlords get stuck with the repairs.  Skipping out on paying mortgages, will eventually lead to bad loans that could tank the housing/lending industry again. 

 

Cancelling student debt?  How many will turn into perpetual students with what amounts to a free ride?  When they finally leave school, how many will have accumulate six-figure student debt that is wiped free, but the jobs that may hire them will be in short supply or barely pay?  

 

Don't forget another one of her big rallying points: the $15/hour minimum wage.  All of those graduates that cannot find jobs can turn to that $15/hour wage to survive.  If that doesn't work, the campaign will ramp up for the next target salary, the $20/hour minimum wage.  Of course she could always push for more cash payouts.

 

Those points that she backed are a major reason why she lost.

The twitterverse and news are often filled with brash loudmouths like AOC and the Sandernista friends who spout a bunch of stale crap that has not worked ever, but they have a megaphone so it gets attention. The more outrageous their positions are, the more press and attention and followers they receive. Its self-perpetuating.  Eventually, they start to believe a lot of the crap they spew no matter how nuts it may be. THey have a loyal echo chamber egging them on.

 

When they actually step away and get back to reality, they find out that the rest of society is not that delusional and they lose their election. The socialism crap appeals to small corners of society, but the majority of society, both right and left recognize the fallacy in it.

58 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Eliminating bail?  Violent crime has spiraled out of control.  Instead of getting the criminals off the streets, they get to go about more illegal acts and maybe taking care of witnesses.

 

Ban evictions?  So landlords who are still stuck paying the bills--taxes, utilities, insurance and perhaps mortgages have to struggle making their ends meet and perhaps worse.  Once these squatters eventually leave the property, who expects it to be left in tip-top condition? The landlords get stuck with the repairs.  Skipping out on paying mortgages, will eventually lead to bad loans that could tank the housing/lending industry again. 

 

Cancelling student debt?  How many will turn into perpetual students with what amounts to a free ride?  When they finally leave school, how many will have accumulate six-figure student debt that is wiped free, but the jobs that may hire them will be in short supply or barely pay?  

 

Don't forget another one of her big rallying points: the $15/hour minimum wage.  All of those graduates that cannot find jobs can turn to that $15/hour wage to survive.  If that doesn't work, the campaign will ramp up for the next target salary, the $20/hour minimum wage.  Of course she could always push for more cash payouts.

 

Those points that she backed are a major reason why she lost.

while I agree with you on all those points, I doubt many of them were on the minds of those who voted for Shontel.  She had a nice smile, looked sincere, and had a nice photo with her & Biden...

6 hours ago, seicer said:

Well, the private institution I work at now is being hammered by free four-year in-state tuition for the state schools. It's difficult to compete when something is being given away for free.

 

Okay? Private toll roads had a hard time competing when the government started building them for free. Nobody is suggesting we were better off before.

 

Also, what state schools are offering free tuition already? I can't think of any.

7 hours ago, seicer said:

Well, the private institution I work at now is being hammered by free four-year in-state tuition for the state schools. It's difficult to compete when something is being given away for free.

 

I forget where you live now. Are you in WV where kids can go to WVU or Marshall on the PROMISE scholarship if they graduate with a 3.0 from a WV high school?

I think Nina lost this race with her comments on Biden last year.  Many democrats, particularly suburban ones, know trump is still lingering and know a dividing Democratic Party only helps trump.   While shontel was canvassing her tail off for Biden, Nina was comparing him to feces.

 

I actually aligned more with Nina and from a humanitarian standpoint, I think she would be a better representative for our poor and sick city.  I voted for her.  But she was too abrasive for the the more moderate dems

16 hours ago, gottaplan said:

while I agree with you on all those points, I doubt many of them were on the minds of those who voted for Shontel.  She had a nice smile, looked sincere, and had a nice photo with her & Biden...

Her anti-semetic references she made about the "dark money" coming in to her opponent was also not a good look. The open embrace of anti-semitism that is going on with the progressive left is creating a huge problem for them.

10 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

I forget where you live now. Are you in WV where kids can go to WVU or Marshall on the PROMISE scholarship if they graduate with a 3.0 from a WV high school?

 

Work at a private school in New York - live wherever 😉 I formerly worked for CWRU in Cleveland, Kentucky State Univ. in Frankfort, Kentucky, and Xavier University in Cincinnati.

3 hours ago, BelievelandD1 said:

I think Nina lost this race with her comments on Biden last year.  Many democrats, particularly suburban ones, know trump is still lingering and know a dividing Democratic Party only helps trump.   While shontel was canvassing her tail off for Biden, Nina was comparing him to feces.

 

Feces? Oh boy, please share sound bites!

 

11 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Okay? Private toll roads had a hard time competing when the government started building them for free. Nobody is suggesting we were better off before.

 

Also, what state schools are offering free tuition already? I can't think of any.

 

All SUNY schools along with Indiana and Washington. Also many states already offer free community colleges.

3 hours ago, BelievelandD1 said:

I think Nina lost this race with her comments on Biden last year.  Many democrats, particularly suburban ones, know trump is still lingering and know a dividing Democratic Party only helps trump.   While shontel was canvassing her tail off for Biden, Nina was comparing him to feces.

 

I actually aligned more with Nina and from a humanitarian standpoint, I think she would be a better representative for our poor and sick city.  I voted for her.  But she was too abrasive for the the more moderate dems

I think this nails it. The modern Democratic Party is much more concerned with appearances than policies. There really is no political home for progressive ideology in the present system. I think the main line Democrats are content to draw themselves in contrast to Republicans and call it a day. The comparison of Biden and Trump to a bowl of feces seems pretty apt to me. Impolitic but apt. 

5 minutes ago, seicer said:

 

Feces? Oh boy, please share sound bites!

 

Yes, the "sound bite" of Turner preferring to eat fecal matter rather than vote for Biden did nothing to help her.  Turner's extreme views did not sit well with suburban voters.  Turner and her supporters made other offensive/derogatory comments about Brown as well.  In the end, Turner came across as offensive and extremist.  She cannot accept the fact that her views and statements torpedoed her campaign and has to blame everyone else for her loss.  

25 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Yes, the "sound bite" of Turner preferring to eat fecal matter rather than vote for Biden did nothing to help her.  Turner's extreme views did not sit well with suburban voters.  Turner and her supporters made other offensive/derogatory comments about Brown as well.  In the end, Turner came across as offensive and extremist.  She cannot accept the fact that her views and statements torpedoed her campaign and has to blame everyone else for her loss.  

No she said she would rather not eat any sh!t

 

“It’s like saying to somebody, ‘You have a bowl of sh!t in front of you, and all you’ve got to do is eat half of it instead of the whole thing. It’s still sh!t.”

 

It’s a pretty good line

46 minutes ago, seicer said:

 

All SUNY schools along with Indiana and Washington. Also many states already offer free community colleges.

 

So need-based scholarships? The universities still aren't free, they just provide aid to certain in-state students who can't afford tuition. But semantics aside, these are very good programs. I went to college on an academic and need-based full tuition scholarship. I still had to take out loans and work a job to cover living expenses because my parents could not afford to help. But I couldn't have done it without the scholarship.

22 hours ago, Dougal said:

PD's podcast says the Jewish vote pretty much elected Brown.  Turner's opposition to Israel was perhaps the deciding issue.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2021/08/did-the-jewish-vote-clinch-shontel-browns-congressional-primary-election-victory-tuesday-this-week-in-the-cle.html

 

 

I haven't looked at the precinct-level numbers, but I'm not sure that they would have the numbers for that.  Though I know that OH-11 does include Beachwood and some of the other eastern-271 enclaves where there is more of a Jewish presence, so it's not as completely risible an assertion as it is when some others make it (especially candidates for statewide office).  To get to the numbers that are capable of having a material impact, I think you'd have to look at a larger narrative: Brown won in the suburbs, including Jewish ones and non-Jewish ones.

 

23 hours ago, seicer said:

 

I had student debt and paid it off just fine. No one holds a gun to your head to sign up for what is essentially long-term debt and choose a major with no economic outcome. Taxpayers should not bail out people's bad decisions. The majority do not support full-on debt forgiveness.

 

20 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

I attended public undergraduate and graduate schools. I took out a lot of loans and I have them mostly paid off. But I would 100% support loan forgiveness because I'm not a sociopath that wants other people to suffer in an unjust system just because I did.

 

20 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Certainly there are problems with student loans but free college is not the answer. It will only create a watered down dilluted product with costs that skyrocket more out of control than they already are. The point above is correct about the burden of student debt being absorbed by those who drop out or went to a phony online college. These issues can certainly be addressed however, in some cases the student needs to bear some responsibility. I know when I took out loans, I better finish my program because I understood being stuck with a mountain of debt and never earned a thing out of it.  

 

Perhaps of note on this slight tangent: Richard Durbin (D-IL) and John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced a bill that would allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy after 10 years after entering their repayment period, which is generally a couple of months after graduation (https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky/2021/08/03/landmark-bipartisan-bill-would-allow-student-loan-discharge-in-bankruptcy-key-details/?sh=a5e55a1336ef).  It used to be that they could be discharged after 5 years, then 7 years, then the limits were completely removed making them generally nondischargeable for life.  It's not forgiveness--there would still be severe consequences to one's credit report for filing bankruptcy--but it's a chance to allow relief from the worst student loans (along with consequences for educational institutions that have too high a volume of their loans discharged), and it may have bipartisan backing.

 

Turner might well have sabotaged something like this by making it an issue of "fighting for more," making the quixotic demand for universal student loan forgiveness her line in the sand and accepting nothing less (which would mean accepting nothing at all in practice, except giving her the PR point that she could take back to her hard progressive backers for further support).  Brown at least seems to be more like Durbin (and Biden).  Maybe I'm wrong, of course.  But that's the impression one gets when one's backers are Sanders and AOC rather than more moderate wing of the party.

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

Turner might well have sabotaged something like this by making it an issue of "fighting for more," making the quixotic demand for universal student loan forgiveness her line in the sand and accepting nothing less (which would mean accepting nothing at all in practice, except giving her the PR point that she could take back to her hard progressive backers for further support).  Brown at least seems to be more like Durbin (and Biden).  Maybe I'm wrong, of course.  But that's the impression one gets when one's backers are Sanders and AOC rather than more moderate wing of the party.

 

You have to start from a bit of an extreme position so that once all the negotiations are done and concessions are made the end result still helps people. Starting from a more moderate position means that anything passed won't help 99% of people.

46 minutes ago, Henryefry said:

 

You have to start from a bit of an extreme position so that once all the negotiations are done and concessions are made the end result still helps people. Starting from a more moderate position means that anything passed won't help 99% of people.

 

That's certainly the theory. But Biden is quite moderate and has already passed some transformative legislation and is about to give us a huge infrastructure bill. The stimulus bill cut childhood poverty in half, for example. Progressives have been trying to do that for years. Now we just have to make it permanent. Sometimes incrementalism is best because it doesn't spawn the huge backlash that extreme positions do.

1 hour ago, Henryefry said:

 

You have to start from a bit of an extreme position so that once all the negotiations are done and concessions are made the end result still helps people. Starting from a more moderate position means that anything passed won't help 99% of people.

 

If that actually worked, President Trump would have accomplished far more than he did.  "Mexico will pay for the wall" as the extreme starting position amounted to almost zilch in terms of permanent changes to immigration laws or funding for border security (human or fixed).  That's just one of a dozen examples I could name.  And, of course, at the end of the day, he lost reelection, the first president since Bush Sr. not to get a second term.

1 hour ago, Henryefry said:

 

You have to start from a bit of an extreme position so that once all the negotiations are done and concessions are made the end result still helps people. Starting from a more moderate position means that anything passed won't help 99% of people.

That is an old line and more simple line of thinking when it comes to negotiating. Many complex negotiations often do not follow such a path. Best to come off realistic and reasonable and you are more likely to be able to advance your agenda better.

4 hours ago, bumsquare said:

I think this nails it. The modern Democratic Party is much more concerned with appearances than policies. There really is no political home for progressive ideology in the present system. I think the main line Democrats are content to draw themselves in contrast to Republicans and call it a day. The comparison of Biden and Trump to a bowl of feces seems pretty apt to me. Impolitic but apt. 

 

 

Dont agree at all. The Democrats are progressive, they just know how to count votes and examine their leverage. They are working on policies while the Nina Turner wing is focused on the appearance of "fighting."

 

The Nina Turner wing thinks they are "fighting hard" but all they really know how to do is act like jerks and alienate literally everyone, then accomplish nothing and blame everyone else.

 

Voters want somebody who will fight for them when the time is right, and be collaborative when the time is right. People like Nina Turner just want to fight. They delude themselves into thinking that this behavior makes them righteous and moral.

Edited by mu2010

34 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

If that actually worked, President Trump would have accomplished far more than he did.  "Mexico will pay for the wall" as the extreme starting position amounted to almost zilch in terms of permanent changes to immigration laws or funding for border security (human or fixed).  That's just one of a dozen examples I could name.  And, of course, at the end of the day, he lost reelection, the first president since Bush Sr. not to get a second term.

 

 

It doesn't matter much what your starting offer is. Negotiation simply comes down to having actual leverage and knowing the leverage you have. In politics that means votes.

 

If I go offer $15 for a house just to start at a more extreme position, or ask for ten times the offered salary in a job offer, I'm not going to have much luck...

Edited by mu2010

3 hours ago, Henryefry said:

 

You have to start from a bit of an extreme position so that once all the negotiations are done and concessions are made the end result still helps people. Starting from a more moderate position means that anything passed won't help 99% of people.

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

That is an old line and more simple line of thinking when it comes to negotiating. Many complex negotiations often do not follow such a path. Best to come off realistic and reasonable and you are more likely to be able to advance your agenda better.

Start from too extreme of a position and that person/group gets tagged as being out of touch with reality.  It gets whatever they proposed dismissed with no discussions or the chance to make concessions.  They get that label attached to them and much of what they want later down the road gets dismissed as well.  They receive no credibility.

1 hour ago, mu2010 said:

 

 

Dont agree at all. The Democrats are progressive, they just know how to count votes and examine their leverage. They are working on policies while the Nina Turner wing is focused on the appearance of "fighting."

 

The Nina Turner wing thinks they are "fighting hard" but all they really know how to do is act like jerks and alienate literally everyone, then accomplish nothing and blame everyone else.

 

Voters want somebody who will fight for them when the time is right, and be collaborative when the time is right. People like Nina Turner just want to fight. They delude themselves into thinking that this behavior makes them righteous and moral.

 

If the democrats were actually progressive they would have extended the eviction moratorium and not waited for Cori Bush to sleep on the steps of the capitol to actually do it. The Democrats are much more concerned about appearances and procedure than the material conditions of their constituents. The Republicans actually try to get stuff done, like the new supreme court justice last fall, they pushed it through and they didn't care about looking like hypocrites they got another justice on the supreme court just under the wire. 

 

2 minutes ago, mu2010 said:

 

Yahoo News: Federal Dollars Drive Record Drop in Poverty

July 29, 2021

 

🤔

 

The age old adage "teach a man to fish" applies here and this policy is almost certain to have dire consequences. That article begins to touch on the immediate issue - the programs are temporary, expire soon, and have unsustainable costs in the trillions. Secondary issues are already surfacing - housing costs are out of control and inflation rates have been >5% for several months now.

 

 

48 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

The age old adage "teach a man to fish" applies here and this policy is almost certain to have dire consequences. That article begins to touch on the immediate issue - the programs are temporary, expire soon, and have unsustainable costs in the trillions. Secondary issues are already surfacing - housing costs are out of control and inflation rates have been >5% for several months now.

 

 

 

I agree with most of you said, where we probably disagree is i think the solution is to raise taxes.

 

As far as "teach a man to fish," i agree with that too, except you can't learn to fish if you're trapped working long hours for low pay, just to stay alive. See Maslow's hierarchy of needs. 

 

All we need is a market economy with some measure of redistribution/expanded social safety net/health care/education etc. A healthy and educated population is also good for business. Everybody wins.

 

Edited by mu2010

In Democratic contests, the moderates strike back

 

 

When New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shocked the political world by unseating a 10-term incumbent in a Democratic primary in 2018, some analysts believed the victory might foreshadow a party shift to progressivism.

 

But three years later, the evidence for the great turn leftward is scant.

 

In fact, looking at elections since 2018, the Democratic Party seems to be more firmly bolted to the moderate wing of the party.

In Democratic contests, the moderates strike back
 
 
When New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shocked the political world by unseating a 10-term incumbent in a Democratic primary in 2018, some analysts believed the victory might foreshadow a party shift to progressivism.
 
But three years later, the evidence for the great turn leftward is scant.
 
In fact, looking at elections since 2018, the Democratic Party seems to be more firmly bolted to the moderate wing of the party.
Curious, that article doesn't mention Cori Bush, Jamaal Bowman, or Mondaire Jones' victories for the left in 2020.

Cori in particular got demolished when she first ran against Clay. If Nina chooses to run again next year, she could conceivably win, especially since Cleveland will likely be whole in the next version of the district.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

1 hour ago, bikemail said:

Curious, that article doesn't mention Cori Bush, Jamaal Bowman, or Mondaire Jones' victories for the left in 2020.

Cori in particular got demolished when she first ran against Clay. If Nina chooses to run again next year, she could conceivably win, especially since Cleveland will likely be whole in the next version of the district.
 

 

when will the new district boundaries be drawn?

 

On 8/5/2021 at 10:34 AM, bumsquare said:

No she said she would rather not eat any sh!t

 

“It’s like saying to somebody, ‘You have a bowl of sh!t in front of you, and all you’ve got to do is eat half of it instead of the whole thing. It’s still sh!t.”

 

It’s a pretty good line

considering the end goal was to take down Donald Trump, one of the biggest threats to our democracy in United States history...it was an awful and ill timed line.  I dont care if she said that in John Kerry vs. George Bush, but when you are trying to take down Trump...bad judgment

Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.