Jump to content
SaysWho?

~*Official 2020 Candidates Thread*~

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

zvxxkac94fu21.jpg

 

 

biden probably has the worst chance of beating Trump, and his chances aren’t going to get better as people learn more about his terrible record

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

83s5w69pjfu21.jpg

 

This is the best video game meme in ages!

 

Bernie's gonna teabag Trump while yelling racist shit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I literally laughed out loud at Jason not getting a reddit re-post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Biden asked Obama not to endorse him. That worked out so well for Gore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chris- said:

I literally laughed out loud at Jason not getting a reddit re-post.

 

Figuratively?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jason said:

Apparently Biden asked Obama not to endorse him. That worked out so well for Gore.

Ehhh prolly just for the primary, he'll be all in for whoever wins the general. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like Biden's popularity is based on nostalgia for Obama, a generally likeable demeanor, and the appearance of electability. I know how well those will translate into actually winning a primary. Personally, I'm not a fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I feel like Biden's popularity is based on nostalgia for Obama, a generally likeable demeanor, and the appearance of electability. I know how well those will translate into actually winning a primary. Personally, I'm not a fan.

Biden acting in the capacity as a campaign advisor to the eventual nominee is the role that he's most suited for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

 

They are, but they'll support whoever the Democratic nominee is for the general election regardless (if the other option is Trump). But there's no question plenty of Democrats are scared/worried about Sanders, agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2019 at 2:49 PM, Massdriver said:

 

I'm interested in counter points to her student debt proposal because I have a lot of skepticism about it myself. But I'm not sure this article does an adequate job making a compelling counter case. Let me respond to the points:

Quote

 President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers estimated this lifetime “earnings premium” at about $1 million over a worker with only a high school education.

 

I'm not sure why they're saying $1 million, because that's not actually what their source says. Their source says $500,000:

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-truth-about-higher-ed_b_11060192

Quote

Higher education is one of the most important investments individuals can make for themselves and for our economy, with bachelor’s degree recipients typically earning $500,000 more in present value over their lifetime compared to high school graduates.

 

Additionally, I'm not sure this estimate is fair. According to the article, the estimate it by looking at the population of older people who have a degree (really, integrating across the age range). But the the problem with the student loan debt isn't *just* that it's a lot more money than it used to be: it's that millennials also got hit with the recession which seriously damaged their ability to build careers. I'd have to do more digging, but what I recall hearing is that the college degree isn't buying what it used to. If that's true, this estimate seems pretty bogus. On top of that, there may be further interactions with how a person progresses in life if they never had to struggle with the debt in the early years. That too, is unaccounted for.

 

 

The article's next point is:

 

Quote

As for tuition-free college, why should children of families in the upper reaches of the income distribution scale receive an income-enhancing state-university education for nothing, when their parents are perfectly capable of helping defray the cost?

 

A moral "responsibility" appeal like this has no place in an economic discussion. What matters is the effects of the policy. While letting people that can afford if flip the bill sounds fine in principle, increasing policy complexity to manage edge cases isn't always useful and can in fact be counter productive due to the additional overhead it occurs. Maybe there *is* a good and better way that's more target, but simply appealing to "shouldn't they handle that" isn't a good argument.

 

 

The final point is:

Quote

Such issues are hardest for students and families of color, as Ms. Warren correctly emphasized. This calls for a targeted approach that relieves the worst financial stress of those least able to handle it, not a sweeping bailout for the middle class and above.

 

I'm most sympathetic to this, but it doesn't actually follow that because some people are hurt more that we should only have a targeted response for those people. Again, policy complexity manifests itself and that some people need more help doesn't mean that help others is a bad idea too. Otherwise, I'm on board with putting additional effort in making sure the people suffering the most actually have their needs satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@legend, the problem is these proposals will eventually get priced by the CBO and they will have to be paid for. Every dollar is an opportunity cost both ethically and politically.  There is no way that all of Waren's proposals as written will pass because the amount of taxes she would need to bring in would also have to pass. WaPo is simply saying that it's a lot of money, and that money could be put to better use than paying for rich kids' college tuition.  I posted this a while back and I think it also makes some good points: https://www.thirdway.org/memo/why-free-college-could-increase-inequality 

 

Edit: Universal pre-k seems to have more evidence behind it for good outcomes. I also think we need to be thinking about vocational tracks in grade school which involves reform, and streamlining different paths for different professions which involves reforms on the college level. What is driving these costs and where can cuts be made?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm very lukewarm on these college tuition proposals because they do not adequately address what should be the ultimate goal: the elimination of a college/university type of education as a de-facto requirement for financial stability and social mobility.

 

This in turn will reduce the "demand" for traditional college/university seats which will force those institutions to reduce costs in an actually competitive environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

What is driving these costs and where can cuts be made?  

 

Uncapped, federally-guaranteed student loans. The schools don't care if the students can ever pay off the loans because that doesn't affect whether the schools get the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Personally, I'm very lukewarm on these college tuition proposals because they do not adequately address what should be the ultimate goal: the elimination of a college/university type of education as a de-facto requirement for financial stability and social mobility.

 

This in turn will reduce the "demand" for traditional college/university seats which will force those institutions to reduce costs in an actually competitive environment. 

 

Fixing student loan debt isn't about fixing that - it's just the first step. I agree with you in a broad sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need to just end the idea of districts altogether, its completely irrelevant anymore as they all just vote in line with their parties, and rarely give two shits about whats actually best for the district.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony of a Biden candidacy is rather delicious.  Here we have a man who appears to be positioning himself as an antidote to Trumpism, but in so doing, has essentially turned his politics into a more palatable brand of it.  He's not attempting to jettison us into the future, but instead return to a past (2015?) when everything was totally fine.

 

It wasn't fine, or at least fine enough.  Yeah, better than the 1950s version of the U.S. Trump invents, but 2021 shouldn't be as good as 2015, but much better.  

 

This is why I don't see him as competitive for the nomination after a few months.  He just doesn't articulate any of kind of future-looking vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Massdriver said:

@legend, the problem is these proposals will eventually get priced by the CBO and they will have to be paid for. Every dollar is an opportunity cost both ethically and politically.  There is no way that all of Waren's proposals as written will pass because the amount of taxes she would need to bring in would also have to pass. WaPo is simply saying that it's a lot of money, and that money could be put to better use than paying for rich kids' college tuition.  I posted this a while back and I think it also makes some good points: https://www.thirdway.org/memo/why-free-college-could-increase-inequality 

 

Edit: Universal pre-k seems to have more evidence behind it for good outcomes. I also think we need to be thinking about vocational tracks in grade school which involves reform, and streamlining different paths for different professions which involves reforms on the college level. What is driving these costs and where can cuts be made?  

 

 

I completely agree that it's a lot of money, and that's why I'm skeptical of it myself. It's also why I'm interested in hearing good breakdowns on it. I don't think that article really stepped up though. Instead they presented a bunch of fairly uncompelling counter-arguments.

 

 

I guess the reason I'm partly responding is because I'm annoyed that there isn't a lot of good rebuttals when I think there should be. When she first announced it I immediately raised an eye-brow and started looking for counter points and instead got horrible sentiment-based reactions. The article you shared is better than those but still disappointingly bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Uncapped, federally-guaranteed student loans. The schools don't care if the students can ever pay off the loans because that doesn't affect whether the schools get the money.

Don't forget bloated and growing administration, and unfunded federal mandates.

 

Personally, I just want to be able to refinance my student loans. My subsidized loans are reasonable (3-5%), but the unsubsidized ones are stupid 9%+.

 

Philosophically, students should not be charged tuition at any state school if they maintain good academic standing (similar to public k-12), and schools should be solely responsible for research and education. Books should be provided by the school. Sports should not be the responsibility of a school. A lot of functions that colleges and universities provide are completely unnecessary, and essential services like counciling should be covered by a robust national health care program. Expenses for non academic administration should be capped. Housing should be subsidized for any poor person regardless of if they're in school or not, and a small stipend (earned via something like work study) should be available for students so they don't have to work during their education. I qualified for every low income college program the feds had, and it was not enough. I still nearly dropped out because I couldn't afford one tuition payment (luckily I was able to find the $700 that I needed and all my financial aid didn't cover). I'll get off my soap box now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the frick is Joe Biden polling so well? Is it just name recognition and status as a former VP?

 

I just don't get it at all. Like, I'm sure as hell not voting for Trump in 2020. But I don't know that I would vote for Biden either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

You seem so against Sanders because of 2016 I'm not sure you are capable of supporting Sanders or discussing him in any meaningful way. Just from what I have observed. I may like Sanders but I didn't hate Hillary Clinton and I certainly am open to other candidates. I'm not sure I can say you are open at all about Sanders given you take every opportunity to paint him in as negative a light as possible.

 

For instance, he  hasn't stopped railing against millionaires and billionaires at all - he discussed it in his latest CNN town hall. He is the current frontrunner and has incredible support. Will he win? No idea - but to suggest he is uniquely a hypocrite in this field is hilarious. :)

 

I'm against Sanders because of the way he's acted. Some of that is how he acted in 2016 but that's hardly all of it. I'm not open to Sanders at all, not even a little bit. If he somehow becomes the nominee I'll vote for him and do so proudly and without "holding my nose" but that doesn't mean I'm going to start harboring illusions about the man. 

 

And yes he is a unique hypocrite in this field. He's the only candidate that demands credit for things he rejects crediting others for, the only candidate who assails others for things he does, the only candidate who sets standards for others that he doesn't live up to. Just look above, trying to knock Biden for a bill that he (Bernie) voted for .. He'll protest that he liked parts of the bill but that concession doesn't apply to anyone else. He's a walking double standard factory. Who else in the race is anything like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, osxmatt said:

How the frick is Joe Biden polling so well? Is it just name recognition and status as a former VP?

 

I just don't get it at all. Like, I'm sure as hell not voting for Trump in 2020. But I don't know that I would vote for Biden either?

 

Please do not abstain from voting or vote for a third party that has no chance of winning. I'm not keen on Biden winning either but he's light years beyond Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, legend said:

 

 

I completely agree that it's a lot of money, and that's why I'm skeptical of it myself. It's also why I'm interested in hearing good breakdowns on it. I don't think that article really stepped up though. Instead they presented a bunch of fairly uncompelling counter-arguments.

 

 

I guess the reason I'm partly responding is because I'm annoyed that there isn't a lot of good rebuttals when I think there should be. When she first announced it I immediately raised an eye-brow and started looking for counter points and instead got horrible sentiment-based reactions. The article you shared is better than those but still disappointingly bad.

I pretty much agree and understand where you're coming from. I haven't looked for other detailed arguments against it, but I imagine we will start to see more of them since so many are adopting it as a policy position this primary. The issue is more complicated than just FREE TUITION. Education reform is complicated and we should direct limited funding where it helps the most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Who?

A snake oil salesmen dressed up as New Age Guru 

 

 

 

 

 

Shes a fuck wit .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/joe-biden-expresses-regret-to-anita-hill-but-she-says-i-m-sorry-is-not-enough/ar-BBWiolH?ocid=AMZN

Quote

Joseph R. Biden Jr. knew Anita Hill was going to be an issue for him. So a few weeks ago, as he prepared for his presidential announcement, he reached out to her through an intermediary and arranged a telephone call, hoping to assuage her.

It did not go how he had hoped.

On Thursday, the first day of his presidential campaign, the Biden camp disclosed the call, saying the former vice president had shared with Ms. Hill “his regret for what she endured” 28 years ago, when, as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he presided over the confirmation hearings in which she accused Clarence Thomas, President George Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, of sexual harassment.

Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter

But Ms. Hill says the call from Mr. Biden left her feeling deeply unsatisfied.

In a lengthy telephone interview on Wednesday, she declined to characterize Mr. Biden’s words to her as an apology and said she was not convinced that he has taken full responsibility for his conduct at the hearings — or for the harm he caused other victims of sexual harassment and gender violence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...