Objectively intelligent.

[SEC_Chick]

So is anyone troubled by Bernie's authoritarian streak?

2 examples from last night:

Wanting to prosecute energy executives as criminals, not based on future changes in the law, but for "the destruction they have knowingly caused." Past actions... with seemingly no legal basis.

Also, on marijuana legalization within 100 days, and vacating and expunging all related convictions and moving the clemency board from the DOJ to the WH and using an executive order to declassify pot as a controlled substance. I did not care for Obama's executive actions. I also hate Trump's executive actions (except for the ones undoing Obama's because what can be done by executive authority should by definition be able to be undone by executive authority), so I also am wholeheartedly against making nationwide changes to criminal law without action by the legislature. Making the presidency *more* imperial isn't the answer, as Trump has shown.

I can warn you that nominating someone in reliance on the fact that they cannot ACKSHUALLY accomplish what they have promised is not a good place to be.

It seems as if to the general public, Bernie has not been fully vetted. Not really. For example, the whole rape fantasy essay hasn't come up in the debates at all yet. Information about his pro-dictator streak is just dribbling out now. I am sure that once he gets the nomination it is all going to be aired for the less online folk, and maybe it's just me, but it seems like the rape fantasy thing may hurt him with suburban women???

Bernie is domineering and shouty in the debates, but I don't think he can beat Trump at that game.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not deluded enough to think the power game will end. I view my principled concern about justice reform as a dream I'll never live to see.

You confuse my very dark view about how things work with me trying to affect a nihilist stance. I was never a nihilist, and I never will be. But I have no faith or hope of any kind. I find myself increasingly suggestible in the face of the argument, "Let them burn it all down. That's the only way to fix it."

The nihilists are the neoliberals, the rentier capitalists, the people who enable what's happening by refusing to discuss the economic issues that matter. Politics is fun and games, but economic matters are of primary importance. Who spoke of them best? Yang. Warren and Bernie are a close second. And Trump, at least in 2016, when he pointed out how neoliberal policies of both D and R administrations were fucking the lower 80% of the country, was also facing the issues directly.

I don't care much about the damage Trump and the Courts inflict on one another. I'm sick of talking about Courts, and dickheaded narcissistic lawyers who infect DC, and political parties. I want to hear some candidate talk about why we are all responsible for 1/2 of all Americans not being able to come up with $400 on 24 hrs notice, why 90% of Americans have no savings, and what this will look like in 10 or 20 years.

But I'll never hear that. And no one will ever accept blame. Even here, when someone puts the blame squarely on neoliberal policies that have fed us well but fucked over a whole lot of other people, everybody pretends not to hear it. Or they blame political parties. If no one has any principles, and we live in a sociopathic system where everything is commoditized, what sensible conclusion can one reach but that its all a power game and Trump is just causing us to recognize it.

You complain that no one will accept blame, but that's all you care about -- you have zero interest in any actual step in the real world to do anything about the things you're complaining about. Sounds nihilistic.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So is anyone troubled by Bernie's authoritarian streak?

2 examples from last night:

Wanting to prosecute energy executives as criminals, not based on future changes in the law, but for "the destruction they have knowingly caused." Past actions... with seemingly no legal basis.

Also, on marijuana legalization within 100 days, and vacating and expunging all related convictions and moving the clemency board from the DOJ to the WH and using an executive order to declassify pot as a controlled substance. I did not care for Obama's executive actions. I also hate Trump's executive actions (except for the ones undoing Obama's because what can be done by executive authority should by definition be able to be undone by executive authority), so I also am wholeheartedly against making nationwide changes to criminal law without action by the legislature. Making the presidency *more* imperial isn't the answer, as Trump has shown.

I can warn you that nominating someone in reliance on the fact that they cannot ACKSHUALLY accomplish what they have promised is not a good place to be.

It seems as if to the general public, Bernie has not been fully vetted. Not really. For example, the whole rape fantasy essay hasn't come up in the debates at all yet. Information about his pro-dictator streak is just dribbling out now. I am sure that once he gets the nomination it is all going to be aired for the less online folk, and maybe it's just me, but it seems like the rape fantasy thing may hurt him with suburban women???

Bernie is domineering and shouty in the debates, but I don't think he can beat Trump at that game.

A cable access show he did as Mayor of where ever he was mayor is available on Youtube. The guy had brain worms already decades ago.

A debate of two crazy old guys yelling at each may push people to vote for the crazy guy who at least has to slowing down wanting to do more damage, instead of unleashing a new crazy guy. I really think you need someone who will, as they say in Texas, take the salt of of Trump by speaking rationally and calling out his nonsense.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

Hey Sebby, Drive-By Truckers are playing your fine town tomorrow night. I think the Rock Show might do you some good.

Your friend,

Ollie

No one on the board cares for Rock n Roll anymore. Icky tried to tell a groupie fuck story a few months back, and sebby/ty/ggg drowned him out with their "i'm smarter than you" posts about the Ukraine of automation or some such.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You complain that no one will accept blame, but that's all you care about -- you have zero interest in any actual step in the real world to do anything about the things you're complaining about. Sounds nihilistic.

Oh really? I’ve supported:

1. UBI
2. Post 2008 student loan forgiveness
3. Financial transaction tax (like Warren’s)

I’d go one further and create a “rent” tax to mine dollars out of parasitic asset holders.

I could go on at further length, but I want the admission that your side is mostly a different stripe of country club republican that just wants to buy off the problem with dumb and regressive redistribution.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Oh really? I’ve supported:

1. UBI
2. Post 2008 student loan forgiveness
3. Financial transaction tax (like Warren’s)

I’d go one further and create a “rent” tax to mine dollars out of parasitic asset holders.

I could go on at further length, but I want the admission that you’re side is mostly a different stripe if country club republican that just wants to buy off the problem with dumb and regressive redistribution.

I would have voted for Yang. But not any other D.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I would have voted for Yang. But not any other D.

I could deal with Warren. And I could see myself voting for Bernie.

We Need a Reset. (That’s about all that endears Trump to me. He’s like a hit of acid to the system. A bad trip is as useful as a good one.)

The worst fucks, the really shitty people, are the Clinton Republicans/Democrats. I was one. I remain one (I can be bought, I admit it). But those people - my people - are miserable. We’re all about appearing to care while kicking the can.

At least my grandparents openly admitted supporting moderate Ds to keep the status quo. These corporate Democrats of today are worse than Trump. They stand for nothing and know nothing.

I’m usually with them, so fuck me too. But I want all the other self-bullshitting sorts here to admit they’re in the same boat.

If Bernie upsets any Democrat, they’re a pocketbook voter engaged in virtue signaling.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So is anyone troubled by Bernie's authoritarian streak?

2 examples from last night:

Wanting to prosecute energy executives as criminals, not based on future changes in the law, but for "the destruction they have knowingly caused." Past actions... with seemingly no legal basis.

Also, on marijuana legalization within 100 days, and vacating and expunging all related convictions and moving the clemency board from the DOJ to the WH and using an executive order to declassify pot as a controlled substance. I did not care for Obama's executive actions. I also hate Trump's executive actions (except for the ones undoing Obama's because what can be done by executive authority should by definition be able to be undone by executive authority), so I also am wholeheartedly against making nationwide changes to criminal law without action by the legislature. Making the presidency *more* imperial isn't the answer, as Trump has shown.

I can warn you that nominating someone in reliance on the fact that they cannot ACKSHUALLY accomplish what they have promised is not a good place to be.

It seems as if to the general public, Bernie has not been fully vetted. Not really. For example, the whole rape fantasy essay hasn't come up in the debates at all yet. Information about his pro-dictator streak is just dribbling out now. I am sure that once he gets the nomination it is all going to be aired for the less online folk, and maybe it's just me, but it seems like the rape fantasy thing may hurt him with suburban women???

Bernie is domineering and shouty in the debates, but I don't think he can beat Trump at that game.

I have already said that I am not a Bernie fan. Still true. But I'm not seeing an authoritarian streak.

On the first thing, I had not heard that he said this, but I would wager that if he were asked, he would say they should be prosecuted under existing criminal laws. Yes, I agree that it sounds far-fetched. But not authoritarian in my book, unless he were to make it happen, and he doesn't seem the sort.

On declassifying pot, I thought that the current drug laws essentially vested discretion in the executive branch to classify controlled substances, and that any President has the power to change that classification by executive action. If people don't like that, it needs to be fixed by Congress.

Agree that Bernie feels unvetted. Those to his right seem more interested in knocking off each other than in going after him. Or did until last night. Too late?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Oh really? I’ve supported:

1. UBI
2. Post 2008 student loan forgiveness
3. Financial transaction tax (like Warren’s)

I’d go one further and create a “rent” tax to mine dollars out of parasitic asset holders.

I could go on at further length, but I want the admission that you’re side is mostly a different stripe of country club republican that just wants to buy off the problem with dumb and regressive redistribution.

Your 1, 2 and 3 all sound like a good start to me, but just a start.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I have already said that I am not a Bernie fan. Still true. But I'm not seeing an authoritarian streak.

On the first thing, I had not heard that he said this, but I would wager that if he were asked, he would say they should be prosecuted under existing criminal laws. Yes, I agree that it sounds far-fetched. But not authoritarian in my book, unless he were to make it happen, and he doesn't seem the sort.

On declassifying pot, I thought that the current drug laws essentially vested discretion in the executive branch to classify controlled substances, and that any President has the power to change that classification by executive action. If people don't like that, it needs to be fixed by Congress.

Agree that Bernie feels unvetted. Those to his right seem more interested in knocking off each other than in going after him. Or did until last night. Too late?

Michigan primary coming up very soon, but of course the Iowa/NH/SC numbers are more important.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Your 1, 2 and 3 all sound like a good start to me, but just a start.

4. Repeal McCarran Ferguson to allow insurers to pool nationally (lowering ins. costs in numerous areas)
5. Cut off fed subsidies of all kinds to states that use license acquisition as a cash machine (licensing endeavors that needn’t be licensed to placate local protectionist interests and mine fee income for the state);
6. Shut down every agency rendered redundant by UBI (give people more cash and put useless middlemen on UBI themselves rather than stealth white collar welfare);
7. INFRASTRUCTURE BILL
8. Bankruptcy relaxation (allow modification of primary mortgages and allow discharge of up to 50% of student loans)

I can be exceedingly generous. Bernie-like. But where you and I differ is you want things managed. You believe in allegedly smart managers. I believe in smart policies. I think smart wonky managers of the ilk you desire are usually the road to hell in the policy arena because most govt folk have never managed shit, never made a payroll. They’re not serious people. They just sound like it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

4. Repeal McCarran Ferguson to allow insurers to pool nationally (lowering ins. costs in numerous areas)
5. Cut off fed subsidies of all kinds to states that use license acquisition as a cash machine (licensing endeavors that needn’t be licensed to placate local protectionist interests and mine fee income for the state);
6. Shut down every agency rendered redundant by UBI (give people more cash and put useless middlemen on UBI themselves rather than stealth white collar welfare);
7. INFRASTRUCTURE BILL
8. Bankruptcy relaxation (allow modification of primary mortgages and allow discharge of up to 50% of student loans)

You ran out of ideas after 3. It's not that 4, 5 and 8 are necessarily bad, they're just pointless. If UBI is a good idea, then 6 is pointless because it doesn't make much redundant. No one opposes 7 except Republicans who don't like taxes, but the challenge is to spend money in a way that really improves things.

You complain a lot about the poverty of Democratic ideas to create jobs, but you don't have any of your own, unless 7 means hiring people to build stuff, which Democrats like.

I can be exceedingly generous. Bernie-like. But where you and I differ is you want things managed. You believe in allegedly smart managers. I believe in smart policies. I think smart wonky managers of the ilk you desire are usually the road to hell in the policy arena because most govt folk have never managed shit, never made a payroll. They’re not serious people. They just sound like it.

I'm not sure why you think I "want things managed," whatever that means. But you're just saying stupid stuff like this because you'd rather bitch than find solutions to problems.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Michigan primary coming up very soon, but of course the Iowa/NH/SC numbers are more important.

Sanders is going to clean up delegate-wise here on Tuesday, and likely win several other states. The race won't be over, but the smart money is on Sanders.

2020 Democratic Primary Betting Odds

Bernie Sanders:*-125, 51.3% implied probability
Michael Bloomberg:*+350, 20.5% implied probability
Joe Biden:*+800, 10.2% implied probability
Pete Buttigieg:*+900, 9.2% implied probability
Hillary Clinton:*+2500, 3.5% implied probability
Elizabeth Warren:*+4000, 2.2% implied probability
Amy Klobuchar:*+6000, 1.5% implied probability
Michelle Obama:*+10000, 0.9% implied probability
Tulsi Gabbard:*+20000, 0.5% implied probability
Tom Steyer:*+40000, 0.2% implied probability

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You ran out of ideas after 3. It's not that 4, 5 and 8 are necessarily bad, they're just pointless. If UBI is a good idea, then 6 is pointless because it doesn't make much redundant. No one opposes 7 except Republicans who don't like taxes, but the challenge is to spend money in a way that really improves things.

4 is significant because it would allow broader pooling which decreases the cost of insurance. It also helps to glide path toward single payer, which I think is an inevitability and would create significant economic gains.

5 is huge because it eliminates a huge barrier to new business formation. Credentialism and licensing are parasitic except in circumstances where absolutely necessary (doctors, pilots, etc.).

8 sound small, but it's not. I'd prefer forgiveness and a removal of the federal govt from the student loan market (no more backing the loans and no more administering them, as this TPA/Guarantor structure only encourages education providers to raise prices), but I'm not sure that will happen any time soon to the degree needed. If we allowed bankruptcy as an option, it would at least cause rates to rise. And as rates rise, they limit ability to borrow, which causes the cost of tuition to freeze or perhaps even drop. (This is an alternative or lead-in to a more broader form of forgiveness.)

6 I include because elimination of the costs of administration of the current programs that provide benefits which will be redundant to UBI is a big chunk of what pays for UBI. Believe it or not, a number of wonks argue that we should continue all the programs and simply add UBI on top. So a person getting a transfer of X to cover necessities would now get XX, and the administrators of the program and the administrators of UBI would do the same job. That's insane inefficiency.

You complain a lot about the poverty of Democratic ideas to create jobs, but you don't have any of your own, unless 7 means hiring people to build stuff, which Democrats like.

Delivery of large scale infrastructure at the fed level can work. The feds can be efficient. The state govts, OTOH, are filled with low talent low quality decision makers. We should scrap most state procurement codes and allow for more public/private partnerships that use currently cheap capital. This provides a benefit to the banking sector, cuts costs to the state, and delivers projects at twice the speed and 1/4-1/3 discount off the cost of traditional state controlled delivery (where contractors disciplined only by state employees of limited talent can feast on change orders). Europe has already adopted this model and it works nicely. Compare their airports and highways to ours.

I'm not sure why you think I "want things managed," whatever that means. But you're just saying stupid stuff like this because you'd rather bitch than find solutions to problems.

I think you favor light regulation on finance, but not on much else. Your view that the govt should spend on infra rather than exploring creative solutions using private capital is a good example. You've faith that govt can deliver best and should control. I think in some regards that's true, but in just as many others, govt involvement is the very problem that needs to be eliminated.

[SEC_Chick]

Speaking of Bernie not being fully vetted...

https://thebulwark.com/sierra-blanca...rushes-bernie/