Agree, he was my favorite, just didn't seem to appeal to any one demographic enough to get traction. If Biden wins I would like to see him offer Booker the VP slot.

Biden doesn't need to.

What doomed both Harris and Booker is that they imagined they'd have a built in African-American base, but Biden just took all that air out of the room.

If someone like Warren or Buttigieg wins the nomination, they'll have to reach out more to African-American voters and thus may select Booker as VP (though that failing is probably going to prevent them from getting the nom).

Biden, OTOH, doesn't really have to worry about that.

I think that the polling of black voters showing that among older voters Biden is heavily favored and among younger that Sanders is, means that one of them will really need to ultimately win the nomination to have the best chance of uniting the electorate. I really can't wrap my head around this at all. I had really hoped that Booker would have done better too.

But even then, a recently Washington Post poll showed that 48% of black voters were backing Biden and Sanders, who was in second place, had like 20%. Biden has a massive lead - and it could be that older black voters aren't even willing to consider Sanders, whereas younger black voters may be.

Sanders comes across as a very angry old white guy. Biden comes off as an affable guy.

Yes, that's how I see it also.

Although none are perfect or near-perfect for me, I think the top 3 in my order of preference is Biden-Warren-Sanders.

If Bloomberg becomes a real contender, I would pick put him 1 or 2.

I think part of it is because moderates, who tend to be the older portion of the dem base, see Biden as the best chance at beating Trump and just aren't willing to move off of him. In a normal election cycle Biden's poor debate performances and gaffes probably cost him but, despite the deep pool of candidates, a sizable number of voters have their minds made up.

I think that a feeling of general affability can overshadow debate gaffes. Some candidates just have a bit of Teflon on them. Look at George W. Bush for instance. Biden is the most affable person of the bunch - he passes the have a beer with test with flying colors.

I don't buy Sanders saying a woman can't win. Seems out of character for him.

I can believe he said "you, Warren can't win" and maybe she misinterpreted it.

That's a shame. I like Booker. I don't know that he was my top candidate but he was in the conversation.

It strikes me that Harris and Booker can be have some big time sway if they wanted. Granted both may be keeping quiet in hopes of getting in anyone's administration (California and NJ have Democratic Governors and usually Democratic voters - so losing them as Senators from those states wouldn't be as difficult as say Sherrod Brown). Warren and Buttigieg, who are both struggling with black voters would love to have either of them endorse them. Biden and Sanders are also fighting over the black vote as well - if Biden can get Harris to turn and endorse him, it's lights out, IMO.

Tonight's debate should be interesting with this he said/she said from Sanders and Warren. Either one of them is lying, or there was a big miss-understanding. I imagine that along with the negative talking points the Sanders campaign were using is going to be a big part of the discussion. Will there be real fireworks? And if there is, can Biden stay above the fray and seem Presidential while is two main rivals duke it out?

Also, is there anyone left in the field that could get a bounce before caucus day? Sanders is riding a waive now, but could some else come from that lower 30% and make a jump? Or does Warren or Mayor Pete have another rebound in them?

I can buy it being a misunderstanding, or Sanders saying something that is probably true (a woman will have a much harder time winning against Trump who loves to weaponize misogyny), but you shouldn't say to a woman running for President.

I took one of those "who do you agree with more" quizzes, and apparently I agree most with Yang.

Weird.

The WaPo one? I got Warren and Yang tied on that one.

Yup.

I've been pretty tuned out, so I didn't realize that Yang had so many positions outside of UBI.

His website has had a lot of position essays for a long time. It's one of the things I've liked about him, even if I don't always agree with some of his solutions (like "Freedom Dollars")

Yang picked up Dave Chappelle's endorsement today. Why even bother with the vote now? Yang has it wrapped up.

You'd think that, but, as widely reported by actual news sources, Danny DeVito endorsed Bernie Sanders yesterday.

Personally I'm going to hang tight and see what Billy Crystal has to say.

Why? Everyone knows that all real men only pay attention to who De Niro picks.

Bernie's hand movement is irritating as heck especially the finger wagging. Others have hand movements but Bernie's is like in your face.

And Klobuchar is consistently going over (and over after being warned).

I think everyone just kind of held serve here, which is not great for Warren or Buttigieg. I think Klobuchar drops out before Super Tuesday (maybe even as early as after Iowa) and soon thereafter endorses Biden.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

#neverWarren #PrimaryWarren #lyingLiz are all trending right now. All that does to me is confirm "Bernie Bros" are the MAGA gang of the left.

Yikes the end of that debate with Warren refusing Sanders handshake well that won’t help her. But Sanders has been hurt by the accusation whether true or not.

Neither one can win without the supporters of the other. So, good night for Biden, I'd say.

I’d agree with that.

Or Trump, if Warren or Bernie get the nomination.

So Biden reveals a bit of the stories of his tragedies bit by bit over debates, but I'm kind of struck by all the stuff he's had to deal with in his life. Grew up a huge stutterer which he had to master. Ends up being elected as a Senator (6th youngest US Senator in history). But right as he's taken office his wife and one year daughter die in a car crash (which also severely injures his two young sons). And then, while he's Vice President, his (probably favorite) son gets cancer and dies at the age of 46.

The fact that he's still an optimistic guy is stunning to me. I've known people who have become bitter for far, far less.

Crossing threads!

Remember, defending champion Ken Jennings wants you to vote for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. https://t.co/aTwXK85iym

— Ken Jennings (@KenJennings) January 15, 2020

Exactly what I've come to think.

I mean, they were the MAGA gang of the left in 2016, too. Nothing has changed.

Seems like the audio has been released of the post debate confrontation between Warren and Sanders. Apparently Warren said "I think you called me a liar on national TV" and Sanders said "Let's not do this right now" and suggested having the discussion later. Sanders also suggested Warren called him a liar before saying let's do this later.

Sounds like both misinterpreted what the other said because it seems both believe what they are saying is true as opposed to one of them making up a lie for political reasons.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

The progressives' Mom & Dad arguing.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/polit...dio/index.html

I'm sure everybody's seen it but the video of his is hilarious, especially Tom Steyer and Sanders' response to him.

Warren to Sanders: 'You called me a liar' - YouTube

Warren comes off as super-fake in this whole thing to me.

I believe Warren intentionally twisted around something Sanders said innocently as a desperation move for Iowa. It kind of fits her MO.

Not a good look for Warren. I think this sticks with her negatively more than it does Bernie. If it bothered her then why sit on it until now? Dropping it 3 weeks before Iowa is terrible optics.

The worst part of this is it has the Bernie Bros all fired up and Bernie Broing all over the internet.

"I don't want to get into the middle of this, I just want to say hi" might as well be the Steyer 2020 campaign slogan.

Warren releasing a video of her older brothers having a sit down is such a bad look. They’re ancient, for the lack of a better term. She’s always appeared much more youthful than her age but it’s a stupid look. Between that vid and the infamous “I might be a Native American after all” vid I just wonder what idiot is advising her.

Biden loves hitting those big lobbyist talking points when it comes to marijuana and video games.

Ouch

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/polit...ary/index.html

Heh, I'm sure Bernie Bro's will have a calm and well reasoned response to this.

The more I watch Bernie, the more he resembles a liberal Ross Perot. He tells everyone in the base exactly what they want to hear - but has no chance in hell of getting even 1/10 of his plan passed in congress. Then, when the adults in the party realize this and try to pick someone else, a large group of Bernie Kool-Aid drinkers want to take their ball and go home. I'm not sure he is really helping the democratic party at this point.

He gets credit for pushing some talking points and policy proposals to the forefront, but as a candidate he does more damage than good. He will not bow out until he's forced to, continues to whine about a party he wasn't part of until he ran for president not supporting him, and his supporters are so toxic they push people away from the party. He's also refused to say he'll support the dem nominee. That's a softball question that he failed. Not a surprise at all that few in the party like him.

His supporters will whine again when he loses and bitch about the process being rigged. They won't be able to convince themselves that Trump is closer to their ideals than Biden (or whoever wins) this time so it will be interesting to see how those that choose to stay home rationalize it.

The NYTimes video with Bernie talking about saying Happy Birthday is a great encapsulation of his strengths and weaknesses. He won't give someone a bullshit Happy birthday because he's always honest, but he admits people are happy to hear it and it's effective.

The strangest thing about Bernie supporters now is calling Warren a "Republican". Not even that she used to be a Republican so hasn't been progressive since they could walk - no, she's a Republican NOW... which... uh... what?!

Extremists on both the left and right suck.

+1

I'm surprised Warren didn't have a better answer. I am same with the guy, I feel I gave up other stuff so I could save for college. I see merit in giving relief to borrowers for the better good (not necessarily straight out forgiveness) so hopefully she (and Sanders) have a better answer to what I am sure will be a repeated question in upcoming debates.

Elizabeth Warren Confronted by Father About Student Loan Plan in Iowa: 'Those of Us That Did the Right Thing Get Screwed?'

I don't get people that get mad about it myself. Like did people who saved for retirement get pissed off that Social Security was created? Or Medicare? Yes, you don't get the benefit, but this helps millions of people going forward. There is no reason, IMO, to stop something that has a massive benefit for people as well as the economy because people beforehand had to plan for it in more detail.

I don't have any undergraduate student loans. All of that has been paid. Any loans I have are from law school. Now if the only thing Warren or Sanders could get done was forgive undergraduate student loans, I would still be for it. Because it would benefit society, even if I don't personally benefit and even though I had to do things a bit differently.

Well I can see there point if they are defaulted on the student debt. They chose to take a loan which means they should be expected to pay it. My mortgage is burden on me should I get it paid by the government? If they were swindled somehow into a bad education from one of those fake colleges for profit that is a different story. To me it pandering to a large group of Americas to solicit there votes.

This is why I like Yang, with his $1000/month idea, student borrowers can pay off their loan and other people can do what they wish with the money.

Defaulted may be a separate conversation, but I also know that in the recent bankruptcy bill they made student loan amounts non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. Which just seems wrong (and was considered to be a WTF at the time).

Also I think it's different than mortgage payments for the reason that it will be part of eliminating student loan debt for (at least public) college going forward.

edit: I also think there is a realization that things have gotten insane in the tuition world. When I went to Emory Law School 18 years ago my tuition was $26,000 a year - which seemed like a pretty high amount. It's now $58,000 a year!! In less than 20 years! I can't wrap my head around it.

I don't get the SS or Medicare counter. The person that saved for retirement will still get the benefit of SS and Medicare. The person that saved and paid for kid(s) college education will not get any equivalent compensation.

I do agree with you it is for the greater good but why forgiveness vs some other sort of relief (e.g. community or like service)?

Was Warren complaining about students loans when she was making $400,000/year teaching?

I feel like the guy kind of has a point, but I also feel like someone who judges the state of their world according to their friends' and neighbors' stuff will never be satisfied (and/or vote Democrat). Warren should've noted that under her plan he wouldn't see any kind of relief, but his children would ostensibly be saved from shouldering the same burden, or an even larger one, considering the trend in tuition.

The elderly when SS and Medicare was passed got a pretty sweet deal. They got the benefits while not having to put anything in. That's probably the comparison.

Then again it's not like there's anything saved for Social Security right now except a bunch of IOUs which will be paid by current and future working classes. I wish I could opt out.

What if you are 80 years old and then they pass Social Security for 65+? That's 15 years you had to scrimp a bit.


That's a good point.

He did not make a conscious decision to get into debt and at least he got something for nothing.

Why forgiveness and not relief in some other way (e.g. community service or like)?

You don't think the same would apply for those who saved for retirement, only to find the government was going to pay a retirement benefit?

Yes. There is such a sense of entitlement here. Someone capable of doing something like making enough money to pay for college without loans thinks this is about them, and not the countless families whose station in life provides them no possible way to pay for the current costs of college who are the focus of this kind of a plan.

Not wanting to pay someone else's bills is a sense of entitlement now?

If he was expressing concern about taxes and the cost for Warren's program, then I see your point. But to take a bill designed to help a huge number of people buried from the wealth and income gaps in the US and to say "why don't I get something too" is incredibly offensive IMO.

I mean how do we normally react when someone gets peeved they have to pay for someone else's public high school bills (you said paying for someone else's bills... paying for someone else's debt forgiveness is a separate question, but I feel it should be considered similarly)?

I sympathize with the guy in the article. I find it offensive that Warren's program is going to reward poor financial decision making on the backs of people who made wiser choices.

Nobody forced you to take out a student loan.

There's been a major marketing fail by the Dems on this. They should talk about expanding public education, not free college or debt forgiveness.

Oh definitely. Its really best for all of us if the lower class and peasants aren't educated in the first place. If you can't afford $40,000 out of pocket (average'ish in state public university cost for a 4 year degree) then education just isn't for you.

But that's just Sanders and Warren on this. No one should be surprised Sanders is for it, of course.

Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Yang are speaking more about reducing the debt burdens and/or expanding low cost public education. At most there is talk of free public college from that section of the party.

Or you could save up, get scholarships, work through college, start with a community college, choose a lucrative field etc...

You wouldn't be drowning in student loans then.

I take exception to this. It's only accurate IF the school you want is close enough that you can live at home. IF, it's not, and IF you have to figure room and board, you can double this. The average net cost for NKU, which is about 15 minutes away, for my family income figures to be closer to 50k for 4 years NET, as in after scholarships, awards, and grants. Not including room and board. We're looking at a cost of 20k per year for EKU, which is a 90 minute drive away, not including extra fees for the program. Also, it's Kentucky. It's one of the most affordable states in the entire US. It's not like we're talking UCLA or SUNY.



Hard to pass things up when a college degree will get you further in life than not having one. Some people may get one and still blow it, and some people can succeed without one, but by and large, the upsides outweigh the down considerably.

I think this is good common sense. But these are also a strategies that aren't quite often presented to the kids themselves, and something a lot of kids of a certain age or circumstance wouldn't understand even if it were presented to them. $40,000 is an absurd sum of money to most teenagers.

What if I told you the degree doesn't matter as much as the skills learned?

What if I told you that changing careers, not just jobs, is normal?

What if I told you there aren't enough "lucrative fields" for everyone that goes to college?

What if I told you starting with a community college puts some kids at a disadvantage when they transfer and are competing with students who have two years of experience and relationships at the four year institution?

I'm not a free college supporter, mostly for polling reasons, but there's no doubt increased costs is a much greater factor than poor choices by students.

Maybe you should look into trade schools?

If you think you're going to change careers then perhaps you should think before taking out a large student loan.

If the job prospects aren't good then again don't take out a student loan.

I would ask you for some stats.

Costs are also increased by the fact we hand out student loans like candy.

That seems a LOT of hindsight is 20/20 stuff there.

My Grandfather died from the flu 30 years ago. I am not mad that they have a vaccine widely available today (nor would I imagine he would be). When we increase military pay, shouldn't all the old soldiers be angry they didn't get it back in the day?

Just a weird argument that you can't change anything because it would somehow be an insult to people in the past.

I would argue costs also increase because of lack of funding due to the fact college aged kids are an incredibly small voting demographic. And the older generation loves to fuck the younger ones.

BLS says the average worker will change careers 5-7 times in their lifetime.

There are already a roughly equal number of students in trade schools and public universities.

How do you know job prospects for when you're forty?

College degree holders make more over their lifetime than do Associate degree holders, who out earn HS diploma holders. Getting any degree is still a better choice than stopping at a HS diploma.

The average public university cost has risen by around 200% since just 2000. It's much higher than even medical costs.

Since the recession jobs for those without any college have decreased while jobs for some college and degree holders have increased.

Certainly colleges cause some of the problems, but that isn't the fault of the students. For them, the need for a degree has increased, the benefits of a degree have increased, and the costs of obtaining a degree have greatly increased.

I think there's just something different psychologically on the table when you're making choices based on your available information at the time. Your grandfather didn't choose to die from the flu. Soldiers didn't choose to make less money.

But imagine you had two choices for college 20 years ago - your dream school, that would put you in deep debt, or your safety public party school, which would leave you with minimal debt. The prudent thing might be to go to the safety school, and forgo that once in a lifetime opportunity (or not go to college at all). Same with the father that talked to Warren. He could choose to take vacations and fix up the house, or save for his children's future. He choice to save for his children's future. Under Warren's plan, he made that sacrifice and missed out on those life opportunities for nothing.

I don't think he's "screwed", shit happens in life and we don't have a crystal ball, and society marches forward, so tough shit to him. But I think it's psychologically different than some new shiny thing coming along that the last generation didn't have. It's about a prudent, responsible decision being the wrong one with the benefit of hindsight. That's tough to swallow for some people. It's like going to the gym for months and not seeing results. It offends our internal sense of fairness. But, life's not fair. Being too conservative and prudent and living for tomorrow is a risk too, you might get hit by a bus or something and all of your life planning amounted to nothing. Every time I put extra money away in a retirement account I wonder if the world will be so fucked in 20 years that I might as well just spend it now. (and I hedge on those feelings a bit by making sure I travel and see the world now, and don't rely TOO much on the idea of a happy tomorrow).

I understand why people are frustrated. Not sure that should matter to whether its good policy. But I remember one of these proposals including some kind of tax credit or something for people who paid off loans.

There are weird psychological things at play. And we are dealing with an older generation that is arguably as selfish as we've ever seen.

Just seems this stuff only comes up when it comes to giving younger generations something. Not a lot of anger over tax cuts. Lot of companies could complain its not fair they had to pay the higher rate for decades.

If you're against bettering the world because you didn't get those benefits, you're a selfish human being.

So people who work hard and pay their own debts are selfish because they don't want to pay the debts of people who don't want to pay their own?

Kinda? This guy *was* supposedly talking about a friend, he could've just as easily thought/said "hey I don't get the benefit, but at least my friend does and that's worth something" rather than "I don't want my friend to get a nickle more than me". I'm not saying I would necessarily act/think any differently in that situation (which we know very little about) but selfish (or self-centered if you prefer) seems like a fair enough description.

But why should he? Why should he be happy for paying for his neighbors irresponsibility when he himself payed for the debts he VOLUNTARILY took on?

Next you'll be telling me that we should pay for a new car for a drunk driver that crashed his car. I mean you should be happy that the drunk driver is getting a new car right?

Oh great. Blame it on the boomers again, ageism at play. Pg 176 seems to dispute your hypothesis. Its not as much age as it is political association/philosophy ... well, I guess this means it could be racism since GOP is predominantly white ...

https://morningconsult.com/wp-conten...RVs_v2_CHE.pdf

He should have chosen a more lucrative field.

Let's not pretend a drunk driver getting in a crash is comparable to a friend putting their kid through college on loans.

Along these lines, I'm starting to see signs that the farm lobby is going to push for another big round of subsidies or welfare (depending on your preferred nomenclature). The original case for the MFP payments was to mitigate damage from trade renegotiation. The new argument is that trade deals take a while to kick in so more welfsidies would be prudent. Last year's round was $28 billion. How much is taken out in student loans each year?

Why is the person that paid his debts the bad person here?

It is comparable though because people should pay for their VOLUNTARY actions right?

So I'm judging from this thread that FOFC doesn't believe in peronal responsibility anymore?

Do you support public free high schools?

Why arbitrarily stop at grade twelve?

Who says he's a bad person? Why is the other guy irresponsible? It never said he wasn't paying his loans. I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the judgments you're making. Likewise, I think being selfish isn't necessarily a bad thing in this day and age, you're just not going to get a medal for it.

I do think the dude has a point to some degree, as I said before, but on the other hand we all have to pay part of our friends' and neighbors' debts as part of society. In the case of school debt, just due to the scale of the problem it's going to be a bitter pill to swallow, and it will be impossible to come up with an answer that satisfies everybody, financially or otherwise, but is that an acceptable reason to not address the issue for the future? Further, this fellow IS likely to get indirect benefit out of the program if he considers that some of his own friends and family (or future family) are bound to be relieved of that much debt and worry. Maybe he can hang out with his friends that much more often if they don't have to work the doubles he had to, maybe he gets that much more time with his kids and grandkids. He's not a bad person for ignoring everything but his neighbor's bank account, but he is self centered.

The amusing thing to me is that this guy isn't talking about saving money for his own tuition payments, he's talking about saving for his DAUGHTER's payments. What did his daughter do to deserve said windfall? What about the kid who's father passed away when they were young and therefore didn't have someone saving on their behalf? Maybe he's pissed that he had to work multiple jobs and take out loans to get the same college opportunities as this woman who got it handed it to her by her father.

The dad's daughter didn't work hard for the money. She could be a complete fuck up like the friend the dad is complaining about in the question. So fairness may indeed be in the eye of the beholder.

The question should be does this benefit society as a whole. Saying I'm against this because it's not fair personally to me even though it benefits society is indeed kinda selfish. If he doesn't think it benefits society, just say so instead of framing it as what about me.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

:shrug:

I’m with you. It’s strange how this conversation has turned to .... father being the ‘bad guy’ and selfish.

The fact that he's a father has nothing to do with the matter of course. Do you all actually believe that being labeled selfish is that remarkable in this day and age? What word would you use to describe someone who would prefer to deny a friend (and everyone else) a benefit strictly because they don't get any? I'm certainly open to suggestion.

The selfish ones are the people who think other people should pay their debts that they voluntarily took out.

Remember somebody (like the father) has to pay for these benefits.

If we were running some kind of balanced economy that might be true. Who has to pay for the forgiveness of Federal loans? It's essentially a tax cut for the folks with student loans, not a tax increase for the dad. It literally costs him nothing. You could say it will still cost him indirectly because of the deficit it creates, but deficit appears to be somewhat of a moot point these days.

I can understand all of YOUR concerns about taxes and the indirect costs, but as noted by someone else above, he never said a thing about any of that. He never said his friend wasn't paying his debts. He only asked if he was going to get his money back because he worked double shifts while his higher paid friend bought a car and went on vacation. Don't ding me for calling this particular dude self-centered because we haven't made the same assumptions about concerns he never voiced.

Finally, based a little on his choice of language and his a-little-too-on-the-nose Goofus & Gallant story featuring ten years of double shifts, I think there's a non-zero chance this dude was a plant.

Guys, I have a confession.

I need a new car. Will you all please buy me a new car that I choose?

We all know cars are needed for today's society.

If you don't help out then you're selfish

No, but I'll gladly support some kind of tax credit program that can help struggling people afford cars, despite the fact that I was responsible and already bought my car without that credit.

There is no analogy necessary. If you have student debt I will vote to have it forgiven and gladly pay my share despite not having a degree or any student loans of my own.

I don't own a car, but if you do I already pay for your car to be safe, I pay for the highways you commute on, and I may have even paid to keep the manufacturer of your vehicle in business. "Am I going to get my money back?"

Do you realize how often you pay other peoples bills already?


Did you know all that when you were 17-19 years old?



If your first inclination is to look at a program that will help millions of your fellow Americans and likely stimulate the economy and say "fuck those people" then you are selfish. This guy is in Iowa, I wonder how many of his buddies got farm bail outs?

My wife and I are fortunate. She has a phenomenal job and makes more money than we ever thought we would. We worked hard and paid off all out student loan debt and have money in the bank for kids college funds. My first thought about this is it would be great for all these people and think about all they could do with the extra money.

So you think I'm selfish now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3262776) I don't get the SS or Medicare counter. The person that saved for retirement will still get the benefit of SS and Medicare. The person that saved and paid for kid(s) college education will not get any equivalent compensation. I do agree with you it is for the greater good but why forgiveness vs some other sort of relief (e.g. community or like service)?

So why forgiveness and not have them pay back some of that loan through community service? Haven't heard any advocates support that.

I think what might be helpful is to define terms. If you don't like the ones below, feel free to propose others.

Selfishness - Wikipedia

Selfish | Definition of Selfish by Merriam-Webster

The common theme is "regardless or disregard of others".

I think the reason why I disagree with saying this person is "selfish" (especially in the seemingly negative connotation that its being used in this discussion) is because his ask is not "without regard/disregard for others".

He's not saying his neighbor should get forgiveness, he's saying where is mine?

Funny you should bring this up, we just bought our daughter a car. I wouldn't mind a free handout on the purchase.

It was under < $50K and it does help the economy!