Updated 2020 election betting odds

[TDub]

Also I'm not a socialist

jfc

Wait. Are you saying Bernies brand isnt socialism? Hes a self admitted socialist, that's his governing stance. That's not really up for debate I didnt think.

[ousdahl]

Mjl, thanks for the response. I can see the concern about Bernie’s spending. Regarding his demonization of business, how does that make Bernie less appealing? Isn’t business pretty demonized either way?

Tdub, thanks as well. I think trad gave your post a JFC cuz it kinda comes across as petty labeling without much explanation.

It would be like someone saying, “I won’t vote for Trump because I disagree with his policies on immigration and the environment,” versus someone saying, “I won’t vote for Trump because I’m not a nazi.”

[ousdahl]

Actually that analogy may not be the best.

Socialism, though often vilified as a label, still has merits that most Mericans can agree upon. Dunno if naziism has any merits.

[Deleted User 89]

Also I'm not a socialist

jfc

Wait. Are you saying Bernies brand isnt socialism? Hes a self admitted socialist, that's his governing stance. That's not really up for debate I didnt think.

as ousie said, i think it's unfair labeling...the term, much like "liberal" has come to be used as a derogative. which i guess is fine if that's truly what you mean. if that's the case, i would presume that you are against things like social security, the federal reserve, farm subsidies, welfare, public schools, public transit, and even the IRS and FDA...all of which are socialistic "policies" (among many others)

[TDub]

Well I think those arent really the same. But whatever. My point is, and I believe Mjl's point is, that people need something to vote FOR, it's not enough to just vote against. I havent and cant see myself ever casting a vote for trump. But that doesnt mean I automatically cast a vote for the dems. I'm guessing that I'm not alone in that approach. We have 300 million people in this country. It is baffling that we are left with (in 2016 at least) 2 people that are almost both impossible to vote FOR. People that are left in that limbo will often just not vote or will find a candidate that they believe in to vote for despite the fact that it MIGHT be a "throwaway vote".

[TDub]

jfc

Wait. Are you saying Bernies brand isnt socialism? Hes a self admitted socialist, that's his governing stance. That's not really up for debate I didnt think.

as ousie said, i think it's unfair labeling...the term, much like "liberal" has come to be used as a derogative. which i guess is fine if that's truly what you mean. if that's the case, i would presume that you are against things like social security, the federal reserve, farm subsidies, welfare, public schools, public transit, and even the IRS and FDA...all of which are socialistic "policies" (among many others)

Its not unfair labeling. He himself labels himself as a socialist.

[twocoach]

jfc

Wait. Are you saying Bernies brand isnt socialism? Hes a self admitted socialist, that's his governing stance. That's not really up for debate I didnt think.

as ousie said, i think it's unfair labeling...the term, much like "liberal" has come to be used as a derogative. which i guess is fine if that's truly what you mean. if that's the case, i would presume that you are against things like social security, the federal reserve, farm subsidies, welfare, public schools, public transit, and even the IRS and FDA...all of which are socialistic "policies" (among many others)

Uneducated conservatives equate socialism to communism and so they spazz out. Asking the dumbest end of our nation to take a moment to read and study is not going to happen. They dont care. The knee jerk reaction is done.

[twocoach]

Well I think those arent really the same. But whatever. My point is, and I believe Mjl's point is, that people need something to vote FOR, it's not enough to just vote against. I havent and cant see myself ever casting a vote for trump. But that doesnt mean I automatically cast a vote for the dems. I'm guessing that I'm not alone in that approach. We have 300 million people in this country. It is baffling that we are left with (in 2016 at least) 2 people that are almost both impossible to vote FOR. People that are left in that limbo will often just not vote or will find a candidate that they believe in to vote for despite the fact that it MIGHT be a "throwaway vote".

When the dem field has five candidates or less, then I will worry about who I am voting for. The primary in my state isnt until May 12th, 2020 which is three months after the first primary in Iowa. Lots of hopefuls will be long out of the race by then. Plenty of time.

[TDub]

Dont tell me what I equate to what and what I am required to think. My guess is that I'm at least equivalently, if not more educated than you. Your intolerance is amusing.

[twocoach]

Dont tell me what I equate to what and what I am required to think. My guess is that I'm at least equivalently, if not more educated than you. Your intolerance is amusing.

My comments had nothing to do with you or your stance. You dont appear to be an uneducated conservative so that had nothing to do with you. I think your radar might be tuned a little tight.

[Deleted User 89]

Wait. Are you saying Bernies brand isnt socialism? Hes a self admitted socialist, that's his governing stance. That's not really up for debate I didnt think.

as ousie said, i think it's unfair labeling...the term, much like "liberal" has come to be used as a derogative. which i guess is fine if that's truly what you mean. if that's the case, i would presume that you are against things like social security, the federal reserve, farm subsidies, welfare, public schools, public transit, and even the IRS and FDA...all of which are socialistic "policies" (among many others)

Its not unfair labeling. He himself labels himself as a socialist.

ok.

i guess i'm just bothered by the negative connotation associated with the term. every "successful" developed country in the world has some level of socialistic policies. even things like police/fire/medical are ultimately socialistic. the idea that we all contribute toward the greater good of everyone shouldn't be demonized, imo. we can disagree about what degree of socialism we want to interject into our government, absolutely, but it's just silly (and lazy) to argue that "socialism is bad"

[TDub]

Fair, it's an ever evolving stance. Obviously we need some level of social services. In general I'm for less government. Years ago that was considered classic democratic liberalism, then it shifted more towards a Republican stance, now both sides want to stick government control into everything.

[Mjl]

Actually that analogy may not be the best.

Socialism, though often vilified as a label, still has merits that most Mericans can agree upon. Dunno if naziism has any merits.

Say what you will about its tenets, but at least its an ethos

[MICHHAWK]

the idea that we all contribute toward the greater good of everyone shouldn't be demonized, imo.

If only.

Under the current system everyone is not "contributing to the greater good of everyone." So if we start giving away even more goodies, what's the motivation.

If only "everyone."

[Deleted User 89]

the idea that we all contribute toward the greater good of everyone shouldn't be demonized, imo.

If only.

Under the current system everyone is not "contributing to the greater good of everyone." So if we start giving away even more goodies, what's the motivation.

If only "everyone."

you're right!

therefor we should just quit trying

[MICHHAWK]

"Socialism" as it pertains to bernie sanders and aoc and Elizabeth wareen and the rest of their ilk is nothing more than a way to gin up votes every 4 years.

Who wouldn't vote for someone promising to give me the farm and everything on it.

[Deleted User 89]

you're silly

but whatevs

[MICHHAWK]

I vow to vote for bs or aoc or ew or whomever if they promise to only give free college and free healthcare and free minimum living wage etc etc etc to those that are currently contributing or have contributed "to the greater good of everyone."

[ousdahl]

Mich, go ahead and vilify poor folks on food stamps all you want.

There’s “socialism” framed only as lazy people expecting free shit, and there’s also “socialism” framed as checks and balances on capitalism, which can otherwise get awful greedy when left to its own devices.

Bear in mind, corporations expect gummint to give them the farm and everything on it, more than any individual citizen.

[Deleted User 89]

i’d personally rather give some poor people “free shit” than bail out massive corporations that made bad business decisions