Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 265: Nobody Likes Aquitter

(+) Yeah! (+)

okay that was legit just a closing speech by pete. not sure what his next speech will be. we've a full hour left.

but we're on to trade!
starting with sanders on why he voted no. not one word on trade deal, fuck 'em, not voting.

then klobuchar, voted yes.
she voted due to labor inspections and deals.
she says we need a north american trading block first before climate change.
"i'll work to make this a part of every future trade agreement..."

paris accord, carbon tax...
ah, there we go.
we need this trade agreement to fight against china.

warren up, also voted yes.
starts with farmers, then worker's rights.
...same idea with future agreements, everybody wants our market... uh...?

steyer up.
"I gotta agree with Bernie Sanders."
dude is Bernie Fan, #1.
he gives agreement to the other two that we do need to do stuff but we need to be leading it, which means even on this agreement it should've been there. "put climate first." he's also trying to tie back killing the Iranian general to this, saying "we're leaders, we do better." he points out that we should leverage our market to force those agreements.

also Trump is Darth Vader.
then backs Bernie once again for prioritizing it first.

Klobuchar trying to respond by... saying we need to negotiate and have friends? then shits on Trump for a bit. i'm not sure what she's getting at. oh, she's saying that it's an isolationist argument without using those words.

FINALLY commercial break.

---

To be blunt, college was and still is pushed incredibly heavily as "the way" for people that clearly can't afford it, may or may not need it, and clearly have no idea what it costs and what kind of loans they're signing for at 18 years old in an education system that doesn't teach personal finance.

I will let you draw your own conclusions from this, but there is a blatantly wrong one to draw here.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Well yes but accurately disputing Pete's and Warren's stupid means testing with facts is only prudent

Fair. I agree that facts do matter, and that your assessment of the cost of means testing is likely accurate.

---

Inviso posted...

Asian American/Pacific Islander

thanks.
legit never heard of them as that. but it does help narrow down what "Asian" means at least.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

this is HR 40, the reparations study bill, and most of the candidates support it

edit: it's actually everyone but bloomberg

got it. didn't know that. i can't say it's a winning issue or that i support it based on how he said it, but props to steyer for trying his best.

Corrik7 posted...

The funny part is that the poorest people generally are the ones who don't go to college!

personally i'm in the camp that likes Yang and Steyer for this: target K-12 education instead, put money in pockets. college is definitely a more elitist thing.

"final question."

---

Peace___Frog posted...

You and I both know that the punishment is the point, regardless of cost. What good is anything if you're not reminding the poors that they're only around by grace of their local lord?

Earning something is a punishment. Lmfao. Fuck the people that actually paid back their loans. You DESERVE it! It should go poof, while those who were responsible just sit there and watch.

Do the right thing. Nothing.
Be irresponsible. Get rewarded.

Literally you have just summed up the middle class argument about welfare and such in seconds. This is what Democrats do not seem to get. When you are propping up others who are being drags at the expense of the middle class, you create animosity.

Surely can't wait to see the tax increases necessary for those who paid back their loans responsibly to pay for those who simply didn't. (And, I mean, why would they even do so at this point anyways).

I can't wait for me who paid back my school loans like 7 years early to get taxed immensely to pay for example my cousins loans which are 120k+ and accumulating with interest for a general biology degree he didn't even finish and continues to accrue because he doesn't even make payments towards it and works under the table to get around the garnishment.

Like, it is a great idea in theory, but it is just another example of welfare that creates animosity with those that actually are responsible. People who go to work every day and bust their asses to support their families and pay their bills, yet are drug down by the welfare.

So, yes, if you are going to do it, you should at least have some small amount that you need to do to earn that generosity to make it not just an enabling act.

"Punishment". "Hey, you might have to make a commitment of some sort to earn this life changing amount of relief we are going to give you that others didn't get an opportunity at because they were responsible and did the right thing.". "Stop Punishing me you villain!".

And, beyond that, college needs major changes also. Colleges should receive major fines that offer degrees that have very little placement unless notifies students of this. They should have to give relative amount of notice what the expected average salary is in such a degree. Any degree offered that has little placement should have disclaimers warning this outright.

---

Random thought that doesn't really matter: Pete sounds like Norman Bates from American Psycho when he talks

---

Corrik7 posted...

Earning something is a punishment. Lmfao. Fuck the people that actually paid back their loans. You DESERVE it! It should go poof, while those who were responsible just sit there and watch.

Do the right thing. Nothing.
Be irresponsible. Get rewarded.

Literally you have just summed up the middle class argument about welfare and such in seconds. This is what Democrats do not seem to get. When you are propping up others who are being drags at the expense of the middle class, you create animosity.

Surely can't wait to see the tax increases necessary for those who paid back their loans responsibly to pay for those who simply didn't. (And, I mean, why would they even do so at this point anyways).

I can't wait for me who paid back my school loans like 7 years early to get taxed immensely to pay for example my cousins loans which are 120k+ and accumulating with interest for a general biology degree he didn't even finish and continues to accrue because he doesn't even make payments towards it and works under the table to get around the garnishment.

Like, it is a great idea in theory, but it is just another example of welfare that creates animosity with those that actually are responsible. People who go to work every day and bust their asses to support their families and pay their bills, yet are drug down by the welfare.

So, yes, if you are going to do it, you should at least have some small amount that you need to do to earn that generosity to make it not just an enabling act.

"Punishment". "Hey, you might have to make a commitment of some sort to earn this life changing amount of relief we are going to give you that others didn't get an opportunity at because they were responsible and did the right thing.". "Stop Punishing me you villain!".

And, beyond that, college needs major changes also. Colleges should receive major fines that offer degrees that have very little placement unless notifies students of this. They should have to give relative amount of notice what the expected average salary is in such a degree. Any degree offered that has little placement should have disclaimers warning this outright.

They mainly need to lose their non-profit status.

---

i have currently been hypnotized by ABC's announcer with a weird echo.

oh okay we're back.
yang's final question: talking about poverty and where america is today.
most of us know this speech, i think.
child poverty? UBI time!
points out how single moms are a giant common threshold for this, points out the value of various jobs being $0 (including artists, which he apologizes for pointing out).

pete's up next.
oh my fuck this is going to all of them isn't it? how many closing speeches are we going to have?

pete's going to use income growth by the 90% as our economy marker.

warren's turn.
was a SPED teacher. invest in children.
tired of rhetoric, wants plans, and... wealth tax!
universal pre-k too.
raising teacher wages, i think?

biden turn.
his past of being poor, single dad. many words were said.
he cares about pre-school!
oh, he points out that many people aren't going to college and... words. but going for a very emotional connect here. "everyone's entitled to dignity and respect," "they're all our children," etc.

bernie up.
the reason is because of tax breaks to the rich and to fossil fuel industry while everyone is paycheck to paycheck.
healthcare is a human right.
RX costs.
1% determines everything.

no seriously these are closing speeches.

Klobuchar...
...did she say in Kobe's memory or am i hearing things?
child care, pre-k, tax credit that exists. reaching voters, story of FDR, pointing out a lack of empathy by trump, no seriously why does she sound like she's always on the verge of tears?
"I know you and I will fight for you."
AND SHE SHILLS!
WHAT A COMEBACK. DIDN'T GET A CHANCE BEFORE BUT SHE PULLS IT OFF!

okay then, steyer next.
republican plan is cruel: cut taxes for rich, cut education for kids. allow corps to pollute while also breaking up unions.

...man he's billionaire bernie.


---

oh good. those were the legit closing statements actually.
finally.

warren and sanders shook hands.
bernie looks exhausted.


---

Amy breakthrough! Shocking!

lol


---

ABC currently propping up Pete in their analysis

---

KamikazePotato posted...

ABC currently propping up Pete in their analysis

TBH happy with the moderators, post game doesn't matter as much.

---

red sox 777 posted...

They mainly need to lose their non-profit status.

Would just make school cost even more.

---

"Most reasonable people would say Klobuchar won tonight"

only the best commentary

---

amy did a pretty good job trying to focus on being empathetic. even when she shilled for her site she did it in a speech that was a plea for emotion.

pete was safe and has a few safety speeches, slows the pace down with his talking the way obama did, gave himself space whenever he needed it. personally i see this as extremely calculated and robotic, like i was trying to say earlier but wasn't clear on, he's Rubio as a dem running the Obama program.

yang is done. it's not that he had a bad showing per se, he just was there, nothing breaking through. like 6 minutes or so i think?

biden was more aggressive this time around and was a constant case of "I DID ALL THE THINGS YOU LOVE." that's his pitch.

warren's pitch was... i'm not sure? i think her main moments were when she was trying to hit pete.

bernie also felt like bernie.

steyer stood out the most. i'm pretty sure he had 2nd most talking time too.

---

Jeez these guys like Pete

---

Their analysis before the break was:

-Amy did good, if you're 'reasonable' you think she won
-Now that we've mentioned that we've mentioned that for 10 seconds, let's talk a lot about how Pete handled himself like a champ despite being under fire from all the meanies
-Biden did better this time I guess
-There were other people on stage?

---

Grimlyn posted...

"Most reasonable people would say Klobuchar won tonight"

only the best commentary

lol
klobuchar is trying to take the people who love biden for his emotional connection. that said, she ain't biden.

and wow, i stand corrected on steyer. for the first half he was 2nd but that last hour shrunk his time drastically and he got 2nd to last. not the most proportional number but still.
yang was 8m.


---

Corrik why do middle class people get so much more upset about student loan debt forgiveness than they do about corporate bailouts and wealthy tax cheats
---

Current "who won?" question after the break

Guy 1: Pete won, Amy won
Guy 2: Pete lost
Guy 3: Pete won, Biden lost
Guy 4: Amy won
Woman 1: Warren won, Amy won., Pete lose, Biden lost

Didn't catch their names

---

Yang and (somehow) Steyer didn't get a single mention.

---

pete "won" in the sense that he was pretty safe the whole time and is maintaining an aura of frontrunner.
i'm convinced pundits love emotion more than the voters because i can't find any desire to voting for klobuchar after tonight.
biden is just strongly, strongly pitching the idea of "I've done everything you love, vote for me (and ignore the things i've done you hate)" and i dunno how effective that is.
warren... i dunno. i've never been a warren guy and i continue to not find her appealing.

bernie being bernie just helps keep his consistent actual frontrunner status.
if nobody mentions steyer you know they're lying. whether it's due to his focus on economy or his reparations bit, you're gonna feel something for him. and both are really helpful in SC.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik why do middle class people get so much more upset about student loan debt forgiveness than they do about corporate bailouts and wealthy tax cheats

Like I told you with Medicare for all and UBI.

I support it if it is done across the board for everyone regardless of stature, income, etc.

If you want to give everyone 18k a year, then the wealthiest to the lowest person should get it. It is considered a person thing at that point, not a who you are at that point.

The problem the middle class has, or those who either couldn't afford to go to college and didn't or went to college and paid their loans back, with these systems is that you are giving them things for not being what is expected of someone.

Why should we go to work all day and work 70 hours a week to care for our children, pay their medical bills, feed and clothe our family, etc.

When people who don't get free medical, their utilities paid, free money, free food, etc.

At some point it is a tough pill to swallow.

Why should someone who knew they couldn't afford to go to college and got a job out of high school or learned a trade have to pay higher taxes to help pay off loans for people who foolishly dropped out of school from partying too much, went for worthless degrees that could never repay them, or were irresponsible to pay them.

Why should someone who took all this into account and paid back everything that they were responsible for have to now pay more to pay for the irresponsible?

This is what creates the animosity.

If you want to do things to create safety nets, then it should benefit every last person equally. It shouldn't fall on people to give more and more because they are doing the right things to make the people who aren't better off. You are hurting those who do right and are responsible to cater to those who aren't.

Like, that's why, I get school loan is dumb and the banks are basically sharks here. But it does not hurt to create a way that is not too hard to earn that relief instead of just handing it out.

Like, I get it. My fiancee had 10k in student loans for cosmetology, a degree she has. She refuses to get a job for it. She pays nothing on her school loans. She now probably owes 30k. I probably can't marry her and file jointly or my income tax return will be seized every year. I can't convince her to get a job. And I can't convince her to give me her info to pay her loans. Nor can I convince her to do anything regarding it. You think having her loans absolved wouldn't be a boon to us? Sure. But, to be honest, she should get a job and pay it off. And, I tell her that just as I say it now. (She is still Trump 2020. Abortion yo).

---

None of that answered any of my question
---

Jakyl25 posted...

None of that answered any of my question

I thought it was super obvious. The middle class does. You are just acting like they don't.

They do about everything that isn't applied evenly.

---

Also I think you somehow have the opinion that people getting their student loans paid off are somehow going to be automatically better off in life than people who dont have student debt.
---

Corrik7 posted...

I thought it was super obvious. The middle class does. You are just acting like they don't.

They do about everything that isn't applied evenly.

If they did care so much about the wealthy avoiding taxes, and corporations receiving bailouts when their finances go bad, then why do they keep voting for the people that enable these practices?
---

Corrik7 posted...

(She is still Trump 2020. Abortion yo).

...okay the debate tonight definitely doesn't help this type. they all want Roe v. Wade codified into law and want to use it as a test. for conservatives, based on tonight only, uh...

Steyer and Bernie are hell no.
Warren and Klobuchar a no.
Yang whatever opinion you had before.
Biden is whatever opinion you had before.
Pete... probably a better opinion.

that's what i'd guess. Pete's making that push for moderates and conservatives, pitching as a uniter, and he was the only one that really did it.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Also I think you somehow have the opinion that people getting their student loans paid off are somehow going to be automatically better off in life than people who dont have student debt.

Um, yeah, many will be.

I should screen shot a post on Facebook just the other day a County DA posted complaining about her school loans that her and her husband have that are around like 200k. And how they struggle every day (mind you while posting about going to fancy restaurants and drinking wine with friends and etc all the time). They probably make a combined at least, at least, 150k a year. Own a 300k+ house. Drive nice cars. And are complaining about their school loans.

They can't pay those back? They won't be better off?

The middle class has no reason to be upset with that?

---

Like, you talk about your family member that has all that student loan debt

Donald Trumps family already steals more out of your earnings than he ever would if his loans were forgiven
---

Corrik7 posted...

Um, yeah, many will be.

I should screen shot a post on Facebook just the other day a County DA posted complaining about her school loans that her and her husband have that are around like 200k. And how they struggle every day (mind you while posting about going to fancy restaurants and drinking wine with friends and etc all the time). They probably make a combined at least, at least, 150k a year. Own a 300k+ house. Drive nice cars. And are complaining about their school loans.

They can't pay those back? They won't be better off?

The middle class has no reason to be upset with that?

Sounds like they are already better off than most people and forgiving their loans wont change that.

Your reason to be upset with them has nothing to do with their loan debt
---

Jakyl25 posted...

If they did care so much about the wealthy avoiding taxes, and corporations receiving bailouts when their finances go bad, then why do they keep voting for the people that enable these practices?

Why would they vote for the party of welfare?

I mean, the middle class used to vote heavily for Democrats. Unions were a guaranteed democrat vote. Why is that changing? They are voting for whoever they think will help them the most.

If Dems want to waste time on identity politics, reparations, and propping up the poor with welfare.

And repubs want to waste time on immigration, corporate benefits, and tax cuts.

Well, at least corporations help us and tax cuts do some also.

There is a reason the rust belt swung last election.

---

Corrik7 posted...

corporations help us

Lol

Corporations mostly use us to line their pockets, buddy
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Lol

Corporations mostly use us to line their pockets, buddy

Corporations pay our bills. Not the government like some.

---

Corporations are also the ones sending you a lot of those bills in the first place

Dont get me wrong, Im not saying Democrats care about you any more than Republicans or corporations do. But everyone should be pro-social safety nets because everyone deserves a certain standard of living just by existing.

By turning basic food and shelter and comfort into a fight between the lower class and the middle class, the rich win.
---

And if by paying into those social safety nets, your family falls below a certain level, guess what, they are there for you too

The richest alone could finance a society where everyone in the country lives at your current personal level of comfort at a minimum and it wouldnt cost you a dime

Now it might END UP costing you some dimes because the rich are gonna fight it. I cant argue that. But then refer back to the first paragraph
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corporations are also the ones sending you a lot of those bills in the first place

Dont get me wrong, Im not saying Democrats care about you any more than Republicans or corporations do. But everyone should be pro-social safety nets because everyone deserves a certain standard of living just by existing.

By turning basic food and shelter and comfort into a fight between the lower class and the middle class, the rich win.

Everyone deserves an opportunity to have a standard of living. If you choose not to take it, that is honestly kind of your own fault.

It shouldn't be given to you whether you wish to take the opportunity or not. That is the precisely different mindset we have.

You think being born affords you the same as everyone else despite the effort you put in.

While others think you should be afforded the opportunity to achieve the same as others. And, if you squander it, that is of your own doing.

There is a difference helping out those who need it time to time. But, there is a huge difference assuming everyone just automatically deserves it no matter what they put out.

That's why the work requirements on Medicare seems so obvious. Like, why would anyone be against it? So you have to put a little effort in to get literally the best health care for free basically that others can work their ass off and never see.

I mean, no one should argue something like that unless its purely on a cost angle.

---

Corrik7 posted...

It shouldn't be given to you whether you wish to take the opportunity or not. That is the precisely different mindset we have.

Yes it is. Its just cruel, IMO, when the means exist to provide basic services for everyone. Thats what fairness means to me. Youre stuck in this other mindset of the concept of work being virtuous and dignified. I wholeheartedly disagree.

None of us asked to be alive. All we can do is make it comfortable for the less fortunate of us while we are.
---

Corrik7 posted...

While others think you should be afforded the opportunity to achieve the same as others. And, if you squander it, that is of your own doing.

But others can afford this more easily than others.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You think being born affords you the same as everyone else despite the effort you put in.

Pro-Life

Literally all we want is a baseline level of support for everyone.

You want nothing?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Pro-Life

Literally all we want is a baseline level of support for everyone.

You want nothing?

Anything given should be given across the board. No matter status, race, religion, etc. All that should matter is American Citizen.

So, whatever you wish to provide, should go equally to every last person in the United States or shouldn't go at all. As far as basic necessities go.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Yes it is. Its just cruel, IMO, when the means exist to provide basic services for everyone. Thats what fairness means to me. Youre stuck in this other mindset of the concept of work being virtuous and dignified. I wholeheartedly disagree.

None of us asked to be alive. All we can do is make it comfortable for the less fortunate of us while we are.

Oh boohoo you disagree with me so you are a monster. Cut the liberal fall back argument. It's pointless. You can argue your points without acting superior and virtue signalling.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Would just make school cost even more.

No, it would make it cost less. It would dis incentivize the profit motive.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Oh boohoo you disagree with me so you are a monster. Cut the liberal fall back argument. It's pointless. You can argue your points without acting superior and virtue signalling.

He didnt say any of this? Projecting much?

---

Jaykl, the answer to your question is simple. Middle class people have experience with student loan debt and understand how it works. They have no idea how corporate welfare and bailouts work because they haven't seen it personally.

---

Hey, if the monster shoes fit, Corrik.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

He didnt say any of this? Projecting much?

its almost like he subconsciously knows his position is morally wrong
---

Yang absolutely brought the at the town hall earlier this week. 45 minutes of near perfection.

But man he did not show up tonight. I'd be curious how often he had his hand raised without being called on, because there is definitely selection bias behind who is given the floor, but even when they were giving him time it wasn't as well utilized.

This was the wrong time to have an off night. -_-

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

Hey, if the monster shoes fit, Corrik.

I only wear a 12.5

---

(Unfortunately) back to Iowa. I do think it's somewhat of concern - particularly for Sanders given the emphasis his message places on it - that turnout was basically level with 2016. 176k now versus 171k in 2016. Given a large crux of Sanders's argument is on a "political revolution" and a surge of young and disaffected voters... that objectively did not materialize here.

I'm not saying it had to break the 2008 total of 239k but it would have been reassuring to at least see it come somewhat close.

I think the turnout is troubling regardless of eventual nominee, I just singled out Sanders there since it's more core to his argument than the others. Hopefully this is just an aberration and we see turnout up in NH and beyond but this was the number I was looking out for almost more than the result once it became clear we basically had a virtual tie Monday night.

---