Democrats, you have one real job...and you are screwing it up

Keridan said:

Moderate means not idiotic enough to think that the answer to Trump's moronic choices is to swing to AOCs GND. Someone who believes there are actually reasonable actions to take. Simple enough?

Click to expand...

What would you consider "reasonable actions" in this context?

Airyaman said:

I'm not looking for any certain person --------->>> The Democrats need to consider them this time unless they want 4 more years of Trump.

Click to expand...

Airyaman, it is possible to cut out everything in between your first sentence and the last one, as I just did.
I bet others know why I did that...show of hands?

Tanngrisnir said:

Nah. They're actually not screwing it up. Based on the last mid terms, people put the dems in the house for a reason. They're simply not coming dangerously close to what you're suggesting.

Click to expand...

The Republicans took all the marbles in 2010 and 2012 an Obama still got elected.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

LOL good one...
Whenever I have been forced to take a client who won't pay to small claims court (thankfully not very often) I always sue for the maximum amount allowed. This accomplishes something very basic, as you might guess. It sets the BAR very high.

If I am owed $1900, I sue for five thousand. That happened. I won but the judge awarded me $2000 and in the end I managed to actually collect $1100 and the plaintiff "bankrupted out" after that first till tap by the deputies.

I found myself staring at the same place of business "under new ownership" so to speak. Where's the guy I sued? Who the Hell knows.
But I did manage to get eleven hundred bucks for my troubles, which beats a big fat zero.

The Green New Deal is more than ambitious, it is a bit unrealistic and a bit "pie in the sky" but if even 25 percent of what it seeks comes to pass, it's a win for everybody in the long run. The GND people are aiming high, perhaps so high that they might get dizzy, and that's where reality checks come into play.

They always do but in the end, SOME GOOD is likely to come of it. Just keep focused on the good stuff and the realistic goals.
NOTHING is EVER 100% pure stupidity.
I can even point to Trump ideas which at least HAVE some good in them, like getting tough with China on their intellectual property theft.
I can support Trump's views on that full throated.

Now, whether he actually follows through is another matter, but if he does, I will thank him for it, and I will even do so unashamedly right here on DP just so everyone sees "this raging Leftist" doing it.

Click to expand...

I also agree with challenging China over intellectual property, and I applaud Trump for cutting off monetary aid to Pakistan ... they are NOT our friends ... plus Trump is currently on the right side of criminal justice reform for non-violent defenders.

But none of that even makes a whisper next to Trump himself as a person. He is still the biggest self-serving liar to ever hold that office, or any office, IMO.

Airyaman said:

The most important job Democrats have -- in the view of this ex-Republican -- is to offer up someone who independents and NeverTrumpers can vote for instead of Trump.

Thus far, you are ****ing this up.

Example: the latest cluster **** is the "New Green Deal". Some of the early D contenders have "signed on". Kamala. Cory.

So they are out for this NeverTrumper. Kamala took herself out for me when she said she would eliminate all private health insurance, including that provided by employers.

As much as I've hated Nancy P. in the past, she gained some respect for saying the "New Green Deal" was a "dream deal". IOW, not realistic. She is at least pragmatic.

I will never vote for Trump. I would never normally vote for a Democrat either. But I considered it it as opposition to Trump.

Be careful of letting this pendulum swing too far. You are dangerously close to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Click to expand...

Democrats are going back to their roots and reversing President Clinton's decision to pull the party to the right. But what Clinton did was create the widespread impression that the parties represent the same policies and presenting no real choice. It's not a fair impression, but it's how a lot of people feel.

So now there will be a clear choice between two national election candidates who couldn't be more different on policy, and now there are people complaining that the Democratic candidates aren't centrist enough.

You can't please everyone.

Idiometer said:

I also agree with challenging China over intellectual property, and I applaud Trump for cutting off monetary aid to Pakistan ... they are NOT our friends ... plus Trump is currently on the right side of criminal justice reform for non-violent defenders.

But none of that even makes a whisper next to Trump himself as a person. He is still the biggest self-serving liar to ever hold that office, or any office, IMO.

Click to expand...

I am still waiting for some follow through on the China IP issues, perhaps someone smarter than me will update me on what is really moving on that.
Re Pakistan, good call, Donald.
The criminal justice reform appears to be a sad joke because while it freed up a couple of thousand nonviolent offenders, it also merits a closer look at how it treats wealthy white collar criminals and some large scale drug distribution kingpins.

Idiometer said:

No more amateurs, please.

Click to expand...

This.

I hope they nominate a more appealing candidate this time, but my vote will be against McConnell/Trumpism, period.

Phys251 said:

IMO the entire election will come down to PA, MI, WI, IA, AZ, and NE-02 and ME-02. NC, GA, and FL will all give Trump or whoever the GOP candidate is a run for the money, but I predict that they will all go red. Note that if even one of them flip, however, the Democrats have a clear track to victory. Same for the Republicans if any of the three swing states in the Upper Midwest (not including Ohio) go red.



A big, big, big problem from 2016 is that the base learned so many wrong lessons. It took a sensationalist media, Russian propaganda, the electoral college, and the least supportive primary candidate since 1980 to bring Hillary down. Not saying she didn't make mistakes--she did, and contrary to popular opinion, she admitted it--but a fair analysis of her defeat requires not cherry-picking the facts.



This is subject to change, but right now the winning move for Democrats is a center-left woman candidate who can connect with the Upper Midwest, paired with a progressive running mate. This would do a few things: (1) Having a progressive VP candidate could be a sort of reverse Mike Pence effect, who was thrown in to appease white evangelicals (and it worked), but not that many other people chose who to vote for/against solely because of Pence; (2) A woman candidate would tap into the highly underrated force known as the woman vote that was stronger in 2018 than in 2016; (3) None of this is going to matter if the Democrats can't flip the Upper Midwest.

I have a couple names in mind but I don't want to say just yet who. Give me a few months and we'll see if they're still up to par.

Click to expand...

Yes, a state we may all be overlooking is Minnesota. Hillary won that one by just 1.52 points. But it is still very early to speculate. in my opinion it was Hillary herself which caused her defeat. Not the Russians, but her laziness to hit the campaign trail. He seemingly aloof and elitist persona she displayed along with her wet mop personality. You can't over look the angry Sanders supporters for the Democrats jury rigging the primaries in Hillary's favor either. At least Newsweek thought that is what turned victory into defeat.

Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof

Her inept campaign strategy and lack of attention she paid to the so called blue wall states, her own backyard also was decisive in her defeat. My own feelings is the Democrats need a fresh young face, not a Warren or the like, too much like Hillary. If that fresh young face is from flyover country, so much the better. Fresh young faces from flyover country who won, Obama, Illinois, Bill Clinton, Arkansas, Jimmy Carter, Georgia. Tired old faces from the Northeast who lost, Hillary, Kerry and Dukakis.

We'll just have to wait and see who gets nominated. I too have been keeping an eye open for a candidate that could win the independent vote.

Idiometer said:

You brought it up, but now you've been challenged so it's off topic?

Righties crack me up with their lame attempts at back pedaling.


:lamo

Click to expand...

Lie. I made no such off topic claim first. Lie once more.

apdst said:

The Republicans took all the marbles in 2010 and 2012 an Obama still got elected.

Click to expand...

Candidates matter, also whether or not independents are angry at the party in power. In 2010 independents were angry at the Democrats in congress and Obama for passing the ACA against their wishes, against America as a whole wishes. Independents voted for Republican congressional candidates in 2010 by a 56-37 margin. Obama had also dropped to an overall approval of 44%, 41% among independents.

In 2012 Obama recovered to an over all 50% nationwide and 52% among independents. He still lost the independent vote 51-48, but that was close enough with the Democrats having the larger base vote. 35-30% over the Republican's base. Obama won by four points.

In 2018 independents voted for the Democratic congressional candidates by a 54-42% margin. Trump had an approval rating of 40% nationwide and a 37% approval among independents. Independents instead of being angry at the ACA, they were turned off by Trump's obnoxious behavior as president. Keep in mind, independents had voted for Trump 46-42 over Hillary in 2016 with 12% voting third party. Independents also voted for the Republican congressional candidates by a 51-47 margin. Meaning the Democrats gained nine points in congressional races, Republicans lost nine points between 2016 and 2018 among independent voters.

2020 leaves two questions to be answered. First, can Trump approach the 50% approval number like Obama did? Obama exceeded that to win reelection. Two, who will the Democrats nominate? Will it be another Hillary Clinton type candidate which if they do, let's Trump back into the race and a possible repeat of 2016. Especially among independents.

Airyaman said:

I'm not worried about the plan. I'm worried about people who support the plan. Well, not even worried. But it puts them on my immediate list of people to not even begin to consider.

Our reality tells us that per usual, the presidency will come down to 2 people. This time, unless Trump resigns or is impeached it's Trump and a Democrat. Trump needs to go, but not to someone who is so willing to jump on board with fantasy.

Click to expand...

The "plan" is flexible. What you can't support is the notion that it is in America's interest to lead the way in alternate energy technology. It is short sighted and wrong.

Nap said:

You can still believe in climate change and also realize that the cost of converting to fully renewable in 10 years is in the trillions of dollars which is far too much given the minimal change it would make on a global scale. If we are on a 10 year plan the only realistic measure we could take that would be feasible with the current technology is nuclear, which makes you wonder if the threat of climate change is so serious why isn't there a bigger push for the cleanest and safest energy source available.

Click to expand...

One reason is that the problem of storing the radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants safely for 100,000 years has not been solved. We could easily poison ourselves and all life on Earth along with it.

Perotista said:

Candidates matter, also whether or not independents are angry at the party in power. In 2010 independents were angry at the Democrats in congress and Obama for passing the ACA against their wishes, against America as a whole wishes. Independents voted for Republican congressional candidates in 2010 by a 56-37 margin. Obama had also dropped to an overall approval of 44%, 41% among independents.

In 2012 Obama recovered to an over all 50% nationwide and 52% among independents. He still lost the independent vote 51-48, but that was close enough with the Democrats having the larger base vote. 35-30% over the Republican's base. Obama won by four points.

In 2018 independents voted for the Democratic congressional candidates by a 54-42% margin. Trump had an approval rating of 40% nationwide and a 37% approval among independents. Independents instead of being angry at the ACA, they were turned off by Trump's obnoxious behavior as president. Keep in mind, independents had voted for Trump 46-42 over Hillary in 2016 with 12% voting third party. Independents also voted for the Republican congressional candidates by a 51-47 margin. Meaning the Democrats gained nine points in congressional races, Republicans lost nine points between 2016 and 2018 among independent voters.

2020 leaves two questions to be answered. First, can Trump approach the 50% approval number like Obama did? Obama exceeded that to win reelection. Two, who will the Democrats nominate? Will it be another Hillary Clinton type candidate which if they do, let's Trump back into the race and a possible repeat of 2016. Especially among independents.

Click to expand...

My point is that the Democrats picking up seats in Congress doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Idiometer said:

What would you consider "reasonable actions" in this context?

Click to expand...

Many factors mentioned in GND. Not sure what to focus on. Almost every item on her list has a more moderate approach that may not have drastic and immediate results, but wont burn us to the ground either.

Idiometer said:

Schultz is just another billionaire who thinks he knows best about what we the people need. He had ONE GREAT IDEA and rightfully made a boatload of money from it, but that doesn't make him a leader.

No more amateurs, please. I want someone who knows what the job is and isn't, and is fully prepared to do the job. Wouldn't it be nice to have some slow news days?

Click to expand...

Billionaires don't directly control anything besides meetings with other billionaires and sympathizing with their plight.
They have "people" who do the thinking for them more often than not. That's because most of them buy into or set up their own think tanks, like the Koch Brothers, who probably hold the record.
They don't even buy their own private jets.
But they just keep hoarding more and more money and sucking the life out of the real world economy.
Not a single one of them has a clue as to how the world works anymore for one simple reason:

Aside from maybe Warren Buffett, NONE OF THEM LIVE IN the real world anymore.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Billionaires don't directly control anything besides meetings with other billionaires and sympathizing with their plight.
They have "people" who do the thinking for them more often than not. That's because most of them buy into or set up their own think tanks, like the Koch Brothers, who probably hold the record.
They don't even buy their own private jets.
But they just keep hoarding more and more money and sucking the life out of the real world economy.
Not a single one of them has a clue as to how the world works anymore for one simple reason:

Aside from maybe Warren Buffett, NONE OF THEM LIVE IN the real world anymore.

Click to expand...

I would add Bill Gates to that. He and his wife have some great ideas for improving the lives of others around the globe, and they put hundreds of millions of their own money into it.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

At least Airyaman pointed to two specifics which he didn't like.

And you? Did you actually read the thing because if you did, you can do the same. I honestly want to hear your objections, too.
I want to know what in this piece of fledgling legislation strikes you as so unrealistic that it doesn't have a chance in Hell of EVER working.

Be specific, use details.

Click to expand...

Fair challenge. I like that style of discussion.

Let's pick semi-random. Honestly, there isn't a point in there that couldn't be argued.

Spinning the dial the first time, we land on replacing air travel. While even she does not claim it's possible to completely remove it, she wants to get it close to nothing with intercontinental high speed railways and transcontinental railways. My biggest problem with this is ROI. We spend trillions inventing, creating, and installing these railways before we even get into the backlash from airlines and plane manufacturers, etc. It takes a minimum of 10 years just to get rolling and then have no reason to believe the new method of travel will be widely used and/or accepted. Consider how many people and supplies are flown currently. How many trains and how much infrastructure would it take to safely handle that load?

Guaranteed wage for those unwilling to work and jobs for those who do. Second spin hit a doozy. Sadly, if a few of these goals were put together with more moderation and reason, I wouldn't be so put off by the outline as a whole. I'm not for paying people unwilling to work, that's just crazy. Those unable to work is different and we could improve existing programs there. The government cannot reasonably guarantee jobs. Especially in a country of 350 million people. It can encourage it. Infrastructure spending is often not wasted. But it can't promise them. Especially not at the same time they are borrowing trillions of dollars on a dozen programs doomed to fail.

The single biggest thing is really if you take the GND as a whole. There are huge lists of very very expensive things and no concept at all of how to pay for any of it. Most of them would take many years to even start to see a single dividend if they were attempted. Deficit spending is one thing. In our system of government, it's unavoidable and some (not even current levels) can even be a good thing. Is there some comprehension on the costs of these programs? Overhaul every building in the US, replace air travel with no existing structure for high-speed rails, pay everyone whether they want to work or not, get rid of nuclear (god why?) power and fossil fuels entirely with no combination of existing technologies capable of handling 25% of the load... Easily 10 * GDP. Put them together and several make others more challenging.

The full document is a little less insane than the summary and FAQ she released, but it's just so wildly out there that I can easily follow the logic of the OP on support of it making Trump's reelection that much easier.

Perotista said:

Yes, a state we may all be overlooking is Minnesota. Hillary won that one by just 1.52 points. But it is still very early to speculate. in my opinion it was Hillary herself which caused her defeat. Not the Russians, but her laziness to hit the campaign trail. He seemingly aloof and elitist persona she displayed along with her wet mop personality. You can't over look the angry Sanders supporters for the Democrats jury rigging the primaries in Hillary's favor either. At least Newsweek thought that is what turned victory into defeat.

Click to expand...

It was all of the above. One simply cannot dismiss Russian propaganda, including the wildly underrated selectivity of Wikileaks' attacks. But the Democrats are well aware that the election will be ultimately won or lost in the states I mentioned earlier.

It's also worth noting that unlike in 2016, there is no air of inevitability within the Democratic base of one single Democratic candidate being nominated, let alone winning.

Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof

Click to expand...

Without question.

Her inept campaign strategy and lack of attention she paid to the so called blue wall states, her own backyard also was decisive in her defeat. My own feelings is the Democrats need a fresh young face, not a Warren or the like, too much like Hillary. If that fresh young face is from flyover country, so much the better. Fresh young faces from flyover country who won, Obama, Illinois, Bill Clinton, Arkansas, Jimmy Carter, Georgia. Tired old faces from the Northeast who lost, Hillary, Kerry and Dukakis.

We'll just have to wait and see who gets nominated. I too have been keeping an eye open for a candidate that could win the independent vote.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. There has not been a Democratic President from the Pacific or the Northeast since JFK. Starting with his successor, they've been from Texas, Georgia, Arkansas, and Illinois. Doesn't mean that a Massachusite Democrat can't become POTUS, cause who knows where the future will take us.

apdst said:

My point is that the Democrats picking up seats in Congress doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Click to expand...

Not in the first midterm. You're correct about that. Only one president since FDR has a president's party in that president's first midterm picked up seats. G.W. Bush and the GOP in 2002. What means a lot is how a sitting president is viewed when reelection time comes. 52% for Obama in 2012, 55% for G.W. Bush, 58% Bill Clinton in 1996, all won reelection. G.H.W. Bush 38% in 1992 lost his reelection bid. Reagan at 62% won his reelection bid in 1984, Jimmy Carter 37% lost his in 1980.

You can go all the way back to FDR, any sitting president with an approval rating of above 50% won his reelection bid. Any president below 50% lost. That by historical standards is much more important than a president's first midterm.

Keridan said:

Fair challenge. I like that style of discussion.

Let's pick semi-random. Honestly, there isn't a point in there that couldn't be argued.

Spinning the dial the first time, we land on replacing air travel. While even she does not claim it's possible to completely remove it, she wants to get it close to nothing with intercontinental high speed railways and transcontinental railways. My biggest problem with this is ROI. We spend trillions inventing, creating, and installing these railways before we even get into the backlash from airlines and plane manufacturers, etc. It takes a minimum of 10 years just to get rolling and then have no reason to believe the new method of travel will be widely used and/or accepted. Consider how many people and supplies are flown currently. How many trains and how much infrastructure would it take to safely handle that load?

Guaranteed wage for those unwilling to work and jobs for those who do. Second spin hit a doozy. Sadly, if a few of these goals were put together with more moderation and reason, I wouldn't be so put off by the outline as a whole. I'm not for paying people unwilling to work, that's just crazy. Those unable to work is different and we could improve existing programs there. The government cannot reasonably guarantee jobs. Especially in a country of 350 million people. It can encourage it. Infrastructure spending is often not wasted. But it can't promise them. Especially not at the same time they are borrowing trillions of dollars on a dozen programs doomed to fail.

The single biggest thing is really if you take the GND as a whole. There are huge lists of very very expensive things and no concept at all of how to pay for any of it. Most of them would take many years to even start to see a single dividend if they were attempted. Deficit spending is one thing. In our system of government, it's unavoidable and some (not even current levels) can even be a good thing. Is there some comprehension on the costs of these programs? Overhaul every building in the US, replace air travel with no existing structure for high-speed rails, pay everyone whether they want to work or not, get rid of nuclear (god why?) power and fossil fuels entirely with no combination of existing technologies capable of handling 25% of the load... Easily 10 * GDP. Put them together and several make others more challenging.

The full document is a little less insane than the summary and FAQ she released, but it's just so wildly out there that I can easily follow the logic of the OP on support of it making Trump's reelection that much easier.

Click to expand...

That was AWESOME.
I really enjoyed reading it and I already agreed earlier with several others who say that it's a pie-in-the-sky overreach created straight out of a hackish dime store graphic redux of a Jules Verne novel.

Yeah, I agree. You can almost go into sugar coma consuming all the syrupy hippie dippie ice cream dreams that they talk about, until your molar bites down on a frozen cherry pit called "unwilling to work", which is when you're forced to spit the whole thing out and push the freezer over with your right foot.

Well...now that we got all that out of the way, it appears that you actually DID indicate that at least some effort IN the DIRECTION of green is possible.
Oops, I forgot the nukes...it is about time someone explained thorium to these people.
If you know anything about the thorium power cycle, then you know it is relatively safe compared to existing reactor design.
Getting rid of anything entirely is impossible, so we can both laugh at that.
Replacing U/Pl nuclear with Th is not only possible, it's the thing that makes the most sense from a safety point of view, and thus stands as possibly one of the things that could help make a lot of the rest of the deal more of a reality.

Motion picture film used to be nitrate based. It was brittle and extremely flammable, so flammable in fact that it could catch fire just sitting in a can all by itself. Somehow the movie business educated people on the new "safety film" which is acetate based and for the next century we all enjoyed it in comfort and safety until digital replaced film altogether.

And so it goes with nukes. Thorium is much safer, safe enough for even a no nuke person to consider, if they decide to be rational enough to dare doing so.

To be continued, let's keep at it because there is much more to talk about.

I have to go to the corner store but "I'll be back."

Checkerboard Strangler said:

That was AWESOME.
I really enjoyed reading it and I already agreed earlier with several others who say that it's a pie-in-the-sky overreach created straight out of a hackish dime store graphic redux of a Jules Verne novel.

Yeah, I agree. You can almost go into sugar coma consuming all the syrupy hippie dippie ice cream dreams that they talk about, until your molar bites down on a frozen cherry pit called "unwilling to work", which is when you're forced to spit the whole thing out and push the freezer over with your right foot.

Well...now that we got all that out of the way, it appears that you actually DID indicate that at least some effort IN the DIRECTION of green is possible.
Oops, I forgot the nukes...it is about time someone explained thorium to these people.
If you know anything about the thorium power cycle, then you know it is relatively safe compared to existing reactor design.
Getting rid of anything entirely is impossible, so we can both laugh at that.
Replacing U/Pl nuclear with Th is not only possible, it's the thing that makes the most sense from a safety point of view, and thus stands as possibly one of the things that could help make a lot of the rest of the deal more of a reality.

Motion picture film used to be nitrate based. It was brittle and extremely flammable, so flammable in fact that it could catch fire just sitting in a can all by itself. Somehow the movie business educated people on the new "safety film" which is acetate based and for the next century we all enjoyed it in comfort and safety until digital replaced film altogether.

And so it goes with nukes. Thorium is much safer, safe enough for even a no nuke person to consider, if they decide to be rational enough to dare doing so.

To be continued, let's keep at it because there is much more to talk about.

I have to go to the corner store but "I'll be back."

View attachment 67250147

Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. I bet we'd find more common ground than you'd expect, actually. I know folks aren't used to a libertarian who believes the government does have a role in helping with many of these items. I can easily justify it, but it's a huge and unneeded digression. Let's just say that I'm open to rational and reasonable programs to move us towards green practices and a stronger economy for the middle and lower class.

As for thorium, I appreciate you spelling it out for anyone reading our posts, but I have been a fan for some time. As far as I can tell, the only reason it isn't in regular use is that it can't double as a bomb. It literally breaks down before melting down and causing major fallout!

I will wait to get further into it until you get back and finish your thoughts.

Phys251 said:

It was all of the above. One simply cannot dismiss Russian propaganda, including the wildly underrated selectivity of Wikileaks' attacks. But the Democrats are well aware that the election will be ultimately won or lost in the states I mentioned earlier.

It's also worth noting that unlike in 2016, there is no air of inevitability within the Democratic base of one single Democratic candidate being nominated, let alone winning.



Without question.



That's an interesting point. There has not been a Democratic President from the Pacific or the Northeast since JFK. Starting with his successor, they've been from Texas, Georgia, Arkansas, and Illinois. Doesn't mean that a Massachusite Democrat can't become POTUS, cause who knows where the future will take us.

Click to expand...

Yes, there's plenty of Democrats coming out of the woodwork these days. I do think Hillary thought she had the election in the bag. She found out differently. I do however think who the Democratic nominee is, is mighty important. Hillary couldn't attract the independent voter, the less partisan voter, the non-affiliated. I have to wonder if the Democrats will once again either overlook them, ignore them or take them for granted as in 2016. That could be a huge mistake. I do think almost any other Democrat would have won in 2016 against Trump. Everything had to go perfect for Trump, everything. Long odds there for that happening once, let alone twice. It would be akin to winning the lottery once, then win it again the week following.

Also, Hillary had all the baggage in 2016, the well known candidate, perhaps too well known. Trump was an unknown quantity. 2020, it will be Trump with all the baggage and be the well known quantity.

JFK won when the Northeast was Liberal Rockefeller Republican territory. there's only one candidate at the moment I think could let Trump back into race. At least as far as independents go. Nominating her could mean losing the independent vote again. Warren has only a 7% very favorable/26% very unfavorable among independents, a minus 17. Trump at the moment is at 21% very favorable/ 37% very unfavorable, a minus 16. Overall counting the somewhat favorable/somewhat unfavorable, Warren is at 23% favorable/36% unfavorable among independents, minus 13. Trump at 41% favorable/47% unfavorable. minus 6. These numbers are highly dynamic and change all the time. Also with Warren, there is a huge 42% of independents in the don't know column.

I'm a huge numbers guy as numbers can tell you a lot without the partisan hangups. But they only tell you so much. The numbers that stand out to me are the very favorable and very unfavorable ones. Those folks in those columns, very favorable for Warren will vote for her, very favorable for Trump, will vote for him. Very unfavorable will not and end up voting for someone else. At least that is how I seen these numbers work in the past. The somewhat's are wishy washy and I seen them change a lot in the past. But not the very favorable and very unfavorable. They don't change much at all.

Airyaman said:

I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes.

I don't discount that AOC's ideas are gaining traction among some, but to be honest, I see the AOC crowd as being as strong as the Trump crowd.

A plurality but no where near a majority.

Perhaps that is enough. It was at least once.

I hope not. I've had enough time being led around by the ideas of a plurality of people.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

Except for the harcore conservatives, and Trump supporters (the 2 are not the same)...the majority of the rest of America will like the aspects of democratic socialism, and will embrace the possibilities it offers.

We know what conservative "free market" economic policies offer.....we have seen the transition over the last 35 years.

The Wealthy get incredibly wealthy, corps squeeze out as much profit as possible, (damn the consequences to the working/middle class) and Wall street sets the standards, as they pretty much own the government. And those standards are simply, make more money, as that is all they do.

Greed is a motivator for a capitalistic society, but democratic socialism, or social morals...is needed to keep that greed in check.

Keridan said:

Thanks for the response. I bet we'd find more common ground than you'd expect, actually. I know folks aren't used to a libertarian who believes the government does have a role in helping with many of these items. I can easily justify it, but it's a huge and unneeded digression. Let's just say that I'm open to rational and reasonable programs to move us towards green practices and a stronger economy for the middle and lower class.

As for thorium, I appreciate you spelling it out for anyone reading our posts, but I have been a fan for some time. As far as I can tell, the only reason it isn't in regular use is that it can't double as a bomb. It literally breaks down before melting down and causing major fallout!

I will wait to get further into it until you get back and finish your thoughts.

Click to expand...

In the beginning of the Cold War we had two roads to take, Uranium/Plutonium fuel cycle and Thorium, and you're correct, only U/Pl had proliferability potential. So, instead of making a decision to invest in one for war and the other for power, it came down to a Sophie's Choice, and Thorium was SHELVED for no other reason.
Literally a decision based on GUNS or BUTTER.



Penn Gillette was catching a lot of flak for saying he was a libertarian but in the last year or two he's been explaining his position a lot better.
He sounds reasonable as well.
Now, you, you and you all get together and for GOD'S SAKE, AGREE on enough to invent a brand new party, lay the groundwork, get asses in seats at the local, state and congressional level in large numbers and maybe in another decade or so you will form enough of a power base to knock one or both major parties off the stage.
Sure, I'll become a libertarian then, a sort of "left leaning" libertarian. Till then, I'm sort of forced to stick with something that has the numbers to win. I am financially secure only as long as my disabled son isn't tossed off his health insurance, which we pay through the nose for, and as long as my disabled veteran wife isn't handed a voucher check and a kick in the teeth.

So you see, we're too vulnerable to cast dream votes, we have to hold our nose and pull a "D" lever. One solution is to make better "D" people but that's a process too.

The high speed rail issue is in flux and here's why...air traffic control isn't being given enough resources to keep pace with demand.
There's 5000 jets in the sky at any given time. The bottlenecks are scary enough as it is during normal times. Add a shutdown or two and at some point the entire system collapses. Canada DID PRIVATIZE their ATC using a nonprofit model. It works, for CANADA.
Can we do the same thing here?
Well, without some ginormous stockholder driven corporation wanting to "relentlessly jam its blood funnel into anything that remotely smells of money",(Matt Taibbi) it is an awfully iffy proposition.

Unfortunately that winds up cursing us with something that continually tries to cut corners to save costs at the price of poorer service so that they can make a profit, and it could even become dangerous as Hell.
So it would either have to privatize as a nonprofit or we have to invest tax dollars into upgrading and neither one of those looks very likely given the current atmosphere in Congress. Nobody and I do mean nobody wants to touch that tar baby.

So, our air traffic is at or near max capacity, security is getting more and more intense, (that adds significantly to travel times) airline profit margins getting slimmer and slimmer, and the result is, we cannot add on many more routes in the future and something needs to take up the slack.
If a handful of private sector investors together with a wee bit of heavy lifting from Uncle Sam wants to take a gamble I wonder why it would not be possible. Parts of HSR are already beginning to happen on the East Coast and we might just see it start to happen out in CA/OR/WA on the West Coast, so now all we need to do is maybe run something through the heartland to connect it all. I am sure Texas knows how to do some of that, as they would get a huge benefit for themselves.

What about the Rust Belt up North? Well, what about it? It might be worth the investment if there's a way to bring back at least some AUTOMATED manufacturing, yes?
So in the end, it does NOT ever "replace air travel" but it certainly adds valuable component to the mix.
Other countries do it and get value.

So far this "Green New Deal" is very radical and way more ambitious than reality would indicate but it is forcing people to look to the future instead of dreaming about a past which is never coming back. Someone had to put it out there.
Someone also needs to smack people who talk about "unwilling to work" in the noggin and give them a reality check, but at least somebody took the chance and put it out there.