TrickstaPriest

What I got from Obama's statements is that he's found the self-professed "woke" are (a) often feeling smug and self-satisfied that calling out problematic behavior and statements is enough, without recognizing the need to take further action; (b) that they are rigidly judgemental, not accepting that flawed people can also be good people, and that you can still share values with people you disagree with.

These are the ones that I find particularly notable, specifically.  I wonder how much information there is available on #4.

Correct.  Evidence in favor: 1) Frequent appearances on Fox News, on which she generally bashes Democrats or the Democratic party; 2) Favorable mention of Gabbard on Fox News, particularly in contrast to leading Democratic candidates; 3) Promotion of Gabbard by alt-right types online; 4) Heavy promotion of Gabbard and favorable coverage of her on English-language Russian media like RT/Russia Today.  Being the "favorite Democratic candidate of Fox News(and Russian state tv)" is not a great strategy for winning the Democratic nomination for president, but if you're planning a 3rd party spoiler candidacy to undermine the Dem nominee, it's a pretty solid plan.  
Gabbard fits the profile for a 3rd party spoiler candidate, one who damages the Democratic nominee in two ways; first, by attacking the Dem nominee from the ostensible left(sometimes from the center, as "too extreme"); second, by siphoning away a few votes in key battleground states.  

It's kind of petty and absurd.  Which sounds exactly like our politicians and congress.

Looks like the correction was published on the 23rd:
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/10/18/us/politics/ap-us-election-2020-gabbard-clinton.html
 
Here's a story about the source audio that resulted in the correction:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7605303/Hillary-Clinton-DIDNT-call-Tulsi-Gabbard-Russian-spy-claimed-Republicans-grooming-her.html
 
Sometimes traditional media behave problematically, but more often I find it's social media that's untrustworthy.

Yeah, Iuz's message was the first I heard of WaPo's screw up. I feel sorry for the guy  who wrote the article. I don't know what editor changed the title on him but geez. They changed it again, but the damage to their rep has been done.
 

I still remember hearing Detroit-based JP McCarthy interview comedian and satirist Pat Paulsen during one of his presidential campaigns.  Paulsen said his campaign was based upon "Manifest Destiny North-to-South," with the intention of taking over Canada.

McCarthy:  Why do you want to invade Canada?
Paulsen:  Because it's north of us.
McCarthy:  (referring to Windsor, Ontario)  Actually, here in Detroit, Canada is south of us.
Paulsen:  (sound of papers being thrown in the air)  Well, that blows my campaign all to h***!

I don't think it was teh bunneh...to give a bit of credit here, this is likely just advanced planning on Trump's part, though it is giving away his intentions in regards to the Mexican-American War (we never said we'd protect the southwestern states forever).  Once he renegotiates the peace treaty and pulls our troops out, Mexico will have control over Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, New Mexico, and Nevada.  It is to be assumed that western Colorado will be used as a bargaining chip by Pence during the cease fire negotiations.

Just to be clear, I meant "parties" as in "persons," not any political parties. Some people will treat power with respect and responsibility; but the American Founding Fathers built checks and balances into the system because they understood that not everyone who gained power would do so.
 
As Abraham Lincoln wrote, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

I am in AWE of Hong Kong's citizens. I fear for them, but damn if I don't admire the hell out of them.
 
 

“The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests, and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”
---Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect, and author (1743-1826)

For me,  I can see why Warren would want to avoid giving the Press that quick Sound bite of "Taxes will go up for the middle class " while the "but you you will SAVE much more than that and here's why..." stuff is cut off. But yes, it did not look good on her. She's got the lead in polls but it's hers to lose. She's still my pick by a narrow margin.
 
Bernie was fantastic, particularly for a guy who underwent surgery. He came across with sincerity, passion, and good humor. The part where he joked with Biden when Biden was talking of talking of Putin while gesturing Bernie's way came off good for both men. Their age is under fire, and maybe despite their differences they feel a common challenge there.
 
Kamala Harris seemed really fixated on shutting Trumps' twitter down and trying to get Warren on board with it. I'm not sure what she was going for there. It's like she was trying to make Warren look bad, but picked a really WEIRD angle to do it with.
 
I rather like Andrew Yang. He's very different in his approaches, but he has some good points... honestly, I don't see him as a president (though I'd be good with it), but after this he needs to be on some sort of position that advises the president. To quote an over used term, he thinks outside the box.
 
I actually like what Steyer was saying, but I have strong concerns he'd not be able to walk the talk.
 
Of all the centrists, Mayor Pete is the one I like the best.  I don't agree with him on some matters but I would trust his intelligence and education to be advantages.
 
I completely agree when you say "All in all, the debate showed several people I'd be happy to see in the Oval Office."
I'd take any of over Trump, and at least four of them I'd consider a win beyond merely 'the lesser of evils'.
I cannot say how tired I am of voting based on the lesser of evils.
 
 
 

I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion and minus being called evil once it's been very civil for modern discourse.
 
Also, great post - I would have liked it more than once if I could have.

ScottishFox, I do apologise, I was not looking to set you up to defend your political system, I expect many here would castigate my system (for different reasons).  I am fascinated with the tax question though, it was what captured my attention and is probably fundamental to the political arguments in democratic systems.  If a nation state is to exist with all the trappings of a modern nation state then everyone needs to contribute to how that system is funded.  There needs to be an agreement (which we come to politically) on what it means to live in the country, what the responsibilities of those citizens will be and what the responsibilities of the state will be to those citizens.  There a LOT of hidden costs in running a country or some government at some time (just to look good) would have slashed government spending without anyone noticing a fall in services provided.
 
It is glib to say "if you don't like it, go elsewhere" (and I hate being glib, so apologies for that) but it is used for all kinds of things and I think that buying into the tax system of a nation is fundamental to deciding to live there.
 
I think any Government needs some ability to spend as it wants (part of the benefit of being voted into office) but I think there could be some way of the Government giving people options on what they want to support with their taxes.  I think that would have to be limited to spending decisions though, real spending like roads, education, health etc and not in providing tax breaks and subsidies.  It would even have been a decent way for Trump to raise the cash for his wall, I am sure lots of his supporters would have dedicated any flexible elements to the tax they provide to building that wall. 
 
 
I educate my child privately, I accept that it costs extra and I made a decision to opt out of public/free education with that in mind.  I do not seek to recoup the tax that might go towards education because supporting the public sector is part of my deal with the State. As Ternaugh points out, to get high quality education you need to spend more cash. At $7,600 a year, under a system where you pay when your kids are in school, I do not think most parents could handle that additional cost on top of their baseline taxes.  I found an interesting CNBC article from last year looking to outline how much Americans pay in tax each year. It varies by state, highest in New Jersey ($19,977) lowest in West Virginia ($6,837).  Adding in high quality education would seriously skew even New Jersey.  If you spread the cost of 13 years of (high quality) education over a 50 year working life, then you would get just under $2,000 a year, every year.  You "might" be able to afford that for one kid but if you have three or four it could cripple you.  The statistic that support ScottishFox however is that " Nationally, the most recent data indicates $11,762 is spent on public education per student."  That is quite fascinating too broken down by State.  What ARE they doing with all that money and, with more resource per pupil than Ternough's school, why are they not all high quality??
 
The State has a real problem with current health of the people.  Our financial systems were set up to support folk for a few years after they retired - that was the statistics.  people would retire about 65 and they would be dead by 70.  That is no longer the case.  People might expect to live 10 or 20 years beyond retirement now and they will not have paid in anywhere near enough to cover that kind of time.  The State provides for those people in all kinds of infrastructure ways which retired folk still use but might not pay towards.  The State needs to decide if and how it collects money from those people so that they contribute to their continued use of the system.  Here, in the UK, we tax pensions if they are above a certain threshold, its complicated but hits high earners and leaves most pensions untouched.  We also pay a community charge - a contribution towards the infrastructure of the local area - lighting, drainage, cleaning, roads, parks etc.  It leans towards the principle of, if you use it, you pay for it. 
 
Doc

I have some magic...oh, never mind...

"People want just taxes more than they want lower taxes. They want to know that every man is paying his proportionate share according to his wealth."--Will Rogers

With that last sentiment I agree. And I don't object to America pulling back from foreign wars generally. But the way Trump has decided to implement that policy here is incredibly short-sighted. By abandoning a people to attack from Turkey who have literally fought and died against America's enemies -- so American soldiers have not had to -- in a region where the US has major strategic interests, Trump has opened the door for the renaissance of ISIS, forced more of the region to align with Russia out of self-preservation, and dramatically damaged America's credibility as a reliable and trustworthy partner for any future endeavor in which the US will need international help (and it will).
 
Yes, the lives lost in Turkey's attack will be Kurdish lives, not American (unless Kurdish-Americans join the fight). But I don't believe our compassion for our fellow human beings should stop at our borders.
 
Also, those "big boy pants" you want other countries to pull up? In many cases the United States was one of those who pulled them down.

I'm sympathetic to wanting to stop involvement over there.  I plainly wish international politics was that simple.  But I have to disagree.
 
This action has basically established the groundwork there for creating a new ISIS.  It's already happened, just with the Kurdish forces being bombed by Turkish ones.  I'm not sure anything we do going forwards is going to fix that.
 
The only way that might be prevented is if all of the Kurdish forces, and all forces and countries sympathetic to them, happen to get completely wiped out.
 
Yes, getting involved in that part of the world was greedy and stupid.  But simply dropping it all onto the floor isn't actually going to address the problem of how we created that mess to begin with.  It's literally the whole criticism of how we trained Osama bin Laden and created ISIS playing over again in real time.  We are now possibly watching it happen, and arguing over whether we should care that it's happening.
 
And I'm sure the MIC wants those profits now, but they are probably going to collect huge in the future by us perpetually de-stabilizing that region.  In the same ways as always.
 
What should have been the right move?  Probably warning Kurdish forces that this was going to happen, and literally not giving Turkey permission to bomb them overnight.
 
What's the right move from here?  Right now, who the heck knows...

Really?  Do I need to remind folks (again) to read the rules?

Actually thought about this not long ago, and more or less came to the same conclusion.  If you want to drive down costs for a field, you a) redevelop how people are trained for that field, and b) make sure competition is actually going on in that field.  The problem is that health care is tricky, as the concept of competition in healthcare is a loose concept at best.  If quality was high across the board, and we automatically cover emergency care, maybe...

Hmm.  You do understand that Government social care programmes never have and never will be about accumulating a pool of money and paying out of it?  I know that is how people often portray it, as paying in before drawing out.  It is not how it was designed and not how it works.
 
As for doctors?  I don't trust them.  They were the most vociferous opponents of the NHS when Nye Bevan proposed it and fought it every step of the way.  Like anyone, doctors will spend their time doing what earns them most.  When they say they cannot afford Medicare, what they mean is that it would not provide the quality of life they desire. 
 
The answer by the state should be training many more doctors, free of monetary debt but tied into a decade of 'national service' making sure everyone has access to basic healthcare.
 
Doc

You know, after working in a scrutiny committee where we have spoken to government offices and private companies when something has gone wrong or not accomplished its goals, I have had a MUCH easier time tracking responsibilities and money through the government offices than through private companies.  And when things go wrong with government offices, we could suggest changes to the way they accounted for things or made decisions and those suggestions usually resulted in changes to make scrutiny better.
 
There are a number of big private companies that have lost billions of pounds (many of them banks) where we end up not only failing to hold any individuals responsible for losing the money but throwing them wodges of public money to ensure they do not go out of business.  We get lots of businesses asking the government to make policy to support their industry (usually at the expense of what their products cost the public) and then fail to pay their workers a living wage or withdrawing their healthcare as a way to force an end to a strike.
 
It is trendy to say Government cannot run anything, that private businesses are a better model for government services.  However, for businesses to thrive there needs to be a credible possibility for them to fail (efficiency is not driven by a desire to be the best but a fear of what will happen when a more efficient business cuts your grass).  The problem is that you do not actually want a hospital, a school or even a prison to fail.  It is rare for such businesses to fail in a clean way where the patients, pupils or prisoners do not suffer in some way.  It is also rare for the owners of such businesses to suffer in anything like the same way - the CEO is often out and into another well-paid job as are the board and others.  The failure of the organisation seems to stick to them less prominently than it does to the shop-floor workers who may find it MUCH more difficult to find new jobs.
 
I am not saying government run is good by default, indeed there is much that government organisations should take from private businesses in achieving efficient business practice but I think that if a private company wants to dip into the public trough, or commit to providing a public service, then they need to be prepared for a much closer scrutiny of their finances than they would otherwise be prepared to do.  
 
A rant, sorry, but the casual use of government-run equating to bad is one of my triggers...
 
Doc

Less war for America, in the short term, maybe. More instability in the Middle East, very likely. Resurgence of the Islamic State almost guaranteed, because the Kurdish forces are one of the main checks on it. Buttressing the Assad regime, because it will cripple a rival, and pro-American, power block in Syria. Which will increase Russia's influence in the Middle East, through its proxy Assad, as well as its existing military and trade alliance with Iran.
 
Not to mention the potential deaths of many Kurds, American allies, to likely Turkish aggression. An historical record of almost any major event in this region of the Middle East over the past two centuries could end with the postscript, "And the Kurds, of course, were screwed again."

I sort of disagree on the assessments of the news channels.  What matters is what of the news stations people actually watch, and what information they take away from it.  I know a lot of people watch Fox News as their primary source of information.  A lot of people. 
 
And while The Blaze is where you would get the "right leaning crazies", most of those crazies have been a part of Fox News for an incredible amount of time, and formed the basis of knowledge and perspective for multiple generations of Americans. 
 
It's literally why climate change is so difficult to convince people of in this country.  To have the majority of the population think this way, and to have a party speak that way, appears to be a unique phenomenon (in modern societies) to America, and you can lay that almost entirely on Fox News and the radio show people that branch off of it (and yet remain a part of it).
 
Climate change denial is only one belief that this happens with, but is a perfect example of how this works: many people watch Fox, that information is disseminated across generations of people and decades of time, and if they were to change their tune about climate change tomorrow people would simply leave Fox, and watch the Blaze instead.
 
The fact that the "Democratic Party" has "caught on" to this kind of meme-like information control does not please me in the slightest, and that will form a new foundation of problems that we are starting to see, but it's nowhere as established, powerful, or yet as dangerous as what has gone on in the past.  And if we want to prevent that from happening, pushing candidates that are not abusing that information and not part of that system is the best way I know of to overturn that power base.

Could I ask what you mean by left-leaning?  Is this 'likely to be supportive of the Democrats' left-leaning or do you mean 'promotes policies that a (impossible) completely objective observer would describe as a left of centre political policy'?  🙂
 
I work in a political environment and it is amazing how quickly things go from being mainstream to whacko and vice versa.  I am also having discussions with my 15 year old son to try and provide him with the tools to understand what people say and the difference between that, what they mean and what they think they mean....  It gets confusing pretty quickly and so I like to have real examples.
 
Obviously a huge difference in the UK is that universal healthcare is not seen as a socialist policy - it is completely mainstream and politicians that threaten that provision can quickly find themselves out of office.  In the US the provision of universal healthcare is resisted most vociferously, often by those that would benefit most.  It is amazing to a UK eye.  Gun control is another touchstone difference between the UK and US.  We draw our centre line very differently and compare our policies relative to a very different marker.
 
Doc