• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Election 2020 The 2020 Candidates: Right, Left and Center!

Status
Not open for further replies.
not fake or satire

Sen. Bernie Sanders to Crash Walmart Annual Meeting

Sen. Bernie Sanders plans to crash WalmartInc.’s annual shareholder meeting next month, but he won’t get the VIP treatment the retailer usually extends to famous guests.

Sanders, a longtime critic of labor practices at the nation’s biggest private employer, will introduce a shareholder proposal at the June 5 meeting in Rogers, Ark., a spokeswoman for his campaign said. The proposal, which has no chance of passing, calls for Walmart to give its hourly workers a board seat.
...
Click to expand...
etc
 
Joe Biden and the end of neoliberalism

gettyimages-1131072396.jpg


Until Joe Biden announced his 2020 candidacy, it was possible to believe that the Democratic Party was poised to shift leftward heading into the upcoming presidential race, readying itself to challenge President Trump's right-wing cultural populism with a progressive populism of its own. The only question was whether it would take a primarily economic form — as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) favored — or also emphasize culture war issues and identity politics — as Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and most of the other Democratic candidates would prefer.

But since Biden declared his candidacy, these expectations have been thoroughly scuttled. Despite Biden's very long track record of middle-of-the-road — and sometimes downright conservative — positions on economics, crime, race, and foreign policy, he leads his nearly two-dozen rivals by a considerable margin in poll after poll. In most polls, he doubles the perpetually second-place Sanders. And those who are supporting Biden appear to be doing so with their eyes wide open. They like him, they think he can beat Trump, and they can obviously live with the policy implications.

That tells us something important and surprising about the current character of the Democratic Party.

Until Tuesday, it was possible to assume most of these early Biden supporters were low-information voters who are paying little attention to the race and naming the former vice president and senator to pollsters mainly because they are familiar with him. But the new Quinnipiac poll indicates that, on the contrary, by far the largest portion of those who are paying "a lot" of attention to the contest (42 percent of them) support Biden. Sanders, meanwhile, has only 8 percent of those who are most engaged and the greatest portion, 28 percent, of those who are paying "little or no" attention.

If Biden maintains his frontrunner status through this summer's debates and benefits as the first candidates drop out (in the Quinnipiac poll, 17 candidates are polling at or below 1 percent, so some are bound to quit soon), it will be a powerful sign that the party has resolved to take its stand against Trumpian populism in the name of neoliberalism — the centrist, technocratic ideology that powered the presidency of Bill Clinton, informed the Obama administration, and guided Hillary Clinton through her two presidential campaigns.

Whatever the outcome of such a contest, it is likely to be the last of its kind.

Let's begin with the darkest scenario for the Democrats: Biden wins the nomination, provoking a third-party run by someone who rallies the disaffected left wing of the party. In the process, this challenge from the left takes votes from the party's nominee, who is then defeated in November 2020. While a handful of starry-eyed socialists might support such a move in the hopes that this left-wing challenger could defeat both Biden and Trump, the reality is that this would be a kamikaze run, intended to torpedo an unacceptably neoliberal nominee. If it worked, the lesson learned by everyone would be that the left wing of the party is too large and restive to countenance another nominee like Biden, who turned out not to be electable at all. The era of neoliberal nominees would be recognized by everyone to be over.

There's another possibility: Biden wins the nomination, the left grumbles and gets even nastier than normal on Twitter but ultimately comes around in grudging support of the campaign out of an overriding desire to defeat the racist, would-be fascist in the White House. This would be a bitter pill to swallow, but for all of the left's fiery rhetoric and grand ambitions, it's shown a pragmatic side in the past and may well do so again once confronted with a choice between Biden and a second term for Trump.

This scenario would end in one of two ways: If Biden were to lose, the recriminations would make the battles stirred up by the Clinton-Sanders smackdown of 2016 look like a good-natured spat between the best of friends. The left would demand blood, and the revolution would claim a lot of victims. It would be the most eventful and portentous intra-Democratic feud since the faction supporting George McGovern's candidacy in 1972 wrested control of the party away from the Cold War liberals. This time it would be neoliberal heads on spikes and the millennial left demanding reform of the party from top to bottom.

But what if Biden were to win the nomination and then defeat Trump? Wouldn't that validate the conviction of so many establishment and rank-and-file Democrats that neoliberalism is the default ideology of a country increasingly clustering in the center left? Wouldn't it ensure that this ideology maintains its hold over the party going forward?

Don't bet on it.

Neoliberalism is under assault around the world — by the right, but also by the young, who long for something beyond what they see as its consensus-focused complacency and accommodationism. This is a generational battle. Biden's supporters are old; the young favor the far more left-wing Sanders or Warren. It's only a matter of time before those who gravitate to neoliberalism pass away, making room for the more activist faction of the party.

This is all the more so because a Biden presidency is unlikely to vindicate neoliberal hopes for a return to "normalcy" — by which the candidate appears to mean bipartisan comity yielding moderate, market-driven policy outcomes that members of both parties can applaud. Bill Clinton was ready to compromise with Republicans on just about anything. They still despised him. Just as they demonized Barack Obama. And that was before the party remade itself in Trump's fire-breathing, omni-belligerent image. Post-Trump Republicans will do everything they can to make Biden a failed president so that they can regain power as quickly as possible. That will make neoliberal equability look an awful lot like impotence.

Joe Biden may or may not prevail in his bid for the presidency. But either way, neoliberalism is preparing for its last stand.
Click to expand...

Millennials might finally change the perception of young people not being involved in elections.

Can the hard-core left have their cake and eat it too? They want to win, and they want major reform.

If they have to choose, then what? Biden?
 
progressives won't vote for a conservative neoliberal neocon, period. the DNC can either accept that and actually listen to their progressive base or they can keep losing until we primary out enough of them that the DNC stops being almost exactly the same policy-wise as the GOP

as for the hard core left, many of them support trump because they want things to break down enough for a revolution, which is a valid tactic for short term gains but can't create anything long lasting
 
I'm excited for the debates. Biden will have to try harder than many think to win. We've all seen how good Sanders is with speeches and debates but I think Warren and Buttigieg are completely underrated debaters and will give the other candidates a challenge as well. Let the best person win!
 
I hope the media continues with their Bernie hate. It always works in his favor in the debates.
 

Bernie Sanders backs 2 policies to dramatically shift corporate power to U.S. workers



RNYMUWD7GUI6TMPTWIZ74WAR54.jpg

Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont holds the first home state rally of his 2020 campaign on May 25 in front of the Statehouse in Montpelier. (Lisa Rathke/AP)
By Jeff Stein
May 28 at 12:43 PM

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will push new policies aimed at giving workers a greater ownership stake in companies, moves the 2020 presidential candidate is pitching as a dramatic transfer of power in the U.S. economy.

The plans would give millions of workers the type of workplace influence typically reserved for shareholders and executives.

Supporters say giving workers a greater ownership stake could boost wages for American workers and force companies to focus on long-term results, while critics contend the plans could cause investors to take their money overseas.

The proposals also suggest Sanders may aim to expand his campaign beyond the issues that defined his 2016 presidential bid — particularly social safety net expansions such as Medicare-for-all and free college tuition — and into other areas of labor policy. They would likely require a complete sweep of Democratic officials in Congress and the White House to be enacted.

“We can move to an economy where workers feel that they’re not just a cog in the machine — one where they have power over their jobs and can make decisions,” Sanders said in an interview. “Democracy isn’t just the opportunity to vote. What democracy really means is having control over your life.”

Sanders said his campaign is working on a plan to require large businesses to regularly contribute a portion of their stocks to a fund controlled by employees, which would pay out a regular dividend to the workers. Some models of this fund increase employees’ ownership stake in the company, making the workers a powerful voting shareholder. The idea is in its formative stages and a spokesman did not share further details.

Sanders also said he will introduce a plan to force corporations to give workers a share of the seats on their boards of directors. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), another 2020 presidential candidate, proposed a similar idea last year.

Both ideas are expected to face significant opposition from the business community, as well as criticisms that they would discourage entrepreneurs from starting businesses and lead investors to seek to put their money overseas.

Warren, Sanders and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), another 2020 candidate, have increasingly pitched ways to address soaring wealth inequality by giving workers a bigger ownership stake in their companies, pushing to give employees increased authority over the profits and decisions made by their employers. That represents an important new area of focus in economic policy for Democratic politicians, economists said.

“There seems to be a virtuous competition setting in between these candidates in reexamining the fundamental relationship between capital and labor,” said Robert Hockett, who teaches law and finance at Cornell University and has worked with Democratic members of Congress on economic policy. “The idea here is to make capitalists of the laborers, and I think it’s one that could catch on as we get closer and closer to the 2020 election.”

Sanders on Friday also reintroduced in the Senate a series of measures to increase the percentage of the American workforce in “employee-owned” ownership models. Those policies include a $500 million bank to finance company transitions to worker cooperatives, new legal requirements that owners give their workers an opportunity to purchase firms that are closing and federal funding to create centers in all 50 states that would encourage employee-owned businesses. These ideas are not gaining traction in the Republican-controlled Senate.

About 25 million workers already own some stock in the company where they work. The United States has about 7,000 companies set up as Employee Stock Ownership Plan businesses — where the ownership can be most significant — representing about 11 million workers, according to research based on federal data by Joseph R. Blasi and Douglas L. Kruse of the Rutgers University Institute for the Study of Employee Ownership and Profit Sharing.

Research by Blasi, Kruse and other academics has also found that employee-owned businesses have smaller racial and gender wealth imbalances, higher savings, higher wealth closer to retirement and other benefits. The academics have also found that these firms increase sales and employment by about 2 percent per year, although the ranks of employee-owned companies have shrunk.

Sanders would become the first member of Congress to propose requiring corporations to create a fund of shares for their employees, said Peter Gowan, a policy associate at the Democracy Collaborative, a left-leaning think tank, who has advocated for the concept.

Sanders also did not provide details on his plan to force corporations to let workers control a share of their boards of directors. Warren has proposed a “co-determination” plan that would require U.S. corporations worth more than $1 billion to let company employees select 40 percent of the company’s board of directors.

These ideas have been met by resistance from the business community, who say the government interventions may inhibit the incentives for entrepreneurs to start new businesses. Jim Kessler, senior vice president of policy at the centrist think tank Third Way, which has been critical of Sanders, said the plans may do little to cover custodial or food service workers at companies, given that these services are sometimes contracted out to non-employees.

Still, the idea to increase the number of worker cooperatives and employee-owned businesses has a degree of bipartisan support, at least for less radical measures. A number of GOP lawmakers, including Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), have pushed legislation to encourage technical assistance and other help to boost employee-ownership firms. Last year, Congress approved a plan by Gillibrand intended to bolster assistance from the federal Small Business Administration for worker cooperatives and employee-owned businesses.

These proposals are a response to a widening gap in the U.S. economy, said Blasi and Kruse, the Rutgers economists. The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans currently own 97 percent of all capital income, including all capital gains, interest payments and corporate dividends.

“With real wages being flat, looking at employee ownership and profit-sharing is a compelling way for the middle class to get a share of the benefits of ownership,” Blasi said. “If we don’t find a way to include the middle class in share of ownership, then capitalism is dead. That’s basically it.”
Click to expand...
 
Oh no... yeah that's fucking creepy as shit...

As for the article you quoted, I sure do like the idea that the workers in a company get more of a stake. I despise the wealthy fucking over the very people who make their wealth possible. It simply makes sense from an ethical standpoint that the people producing something have a stake in the company and some amount of say in what goes on. Not only that, but when a company treats you right and values and recognizes the importance of your contributions, you have more pride in your work and are more productive. And the guys at the top are still rich as shit so why the fuck not? I think it's criminal that someone with money can come in and decide to make something happen (open a factory, etc), and then exploit poor people to actually produce the product, when those people are integral to the whole process and should be compensated accordingly. So the guy at the top makes less money, but he's still rich.

Trickle-down economics is a stupid pipe dream that has enabled massive wealth redistribution to the top. The only way we can have a strong middle class again is if we have policies that enforce wealth distribution away from those who have most of it. They can still be richer than everyone else, that's fine with me, but this endless amassing of obscene wealth at the expense of everyone else has to stop, it's madness. I actually think it's some sort of mental disorder, this power monger thing. Like no amount of money and power is ever enough, they need everything to be theirs. It's by far the primary problem in the world today.
 
Wow! Lots of Bernie love up in here. Registered Republican, who voted for Obama here. I didn't vote in this last election. I am semi Christian, 1/4 Puerto Rican( hardcore catholic grandmother) and a conservative sympathizer. I do admit a lot of my hang ups with the democratic party are based on identity politic groups reaching their hands out with demands for only their group. I hate this because even though I am a quarter Puerto Rican I look very much white and it sounds strange saying this but I am starting to feel more and more marginalized but all that is beside the point.

I have been watching some of the candidates and I haven't seen his name mentioned in this thread but I am really impressed with the way Butegieg carries himself. He seems very articulate, concise, pragmatic, intelligent and purposeful. He doesn't mince words and you can tell he his morals and ideals are deeply embedded. He also doesn't seem inflexible, as if he couldn't truly take advice, counsel or work with others to get things done. I really wish he wasn't homosexual. Not because I really have anything against homosexual people but because I have my doubts as to if he could ever stand a chance of beating Trump. Thoughts?
 
somnilicious said:
I really wish he wasn't homosexual. Not because I really have anything against homosexual people but because I have my doubts as to if he could ever stand a chance of beating Trump. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
We've discussed Pete here a few times. The debates are coming up and I'm teetering between four different candidates, Pete being one of them.

You have a valid question, and my answer is this: With enough time, we will have a gay president just as we eventually had a black one. Pete is geared for success in the Democratic party whether or not he wins the primaries. My guess is that he will be the first OPENLY gay president. It may or may not happen in 2020, but it will happen.
 
This debate is gonna be really interesting. Not so much because of the issues...just to see how they interact. Who will be on offense? Who will go after who?
 
Joe Biden says 'we're gonna cure cancer' if he's elected president


Former Vice President Joe Biden says that he'll cure cancer if he's elected president.

Speaking at a campaign stop in Ottumwa, Iowa, on Tuesday he discussed losing loved ones before making his promise.

"A lot of you understand what loss is and when loss occurs, you know that people come up to you and tell you 'I understand' if you lose a husband, a wife, a son, a daughter, a family member," he said. "That's why I've worked so hard in my career to make sure that — I promise you if I'm elected president, you're going to see the single most important thing that changes America, we're gonna cure cancer."

The statement drew applause from the audience.

Biden has taken the lead on cancer issues before. He lost his eldest son, Beau Biden, to brain cancer, in 2015. The former vice president was tasked with leading President Barack Obama's "Cancer Moonshot" initiative to find a cure for cancer in the last year of the Obama administration.

After leaving office, Biden helped lead the Biden Cancer initiative at the University of Pennsylvania, which aims to "develop and drive implementation of solutions to accelerate progress in cancer prevention, detection, diagnosis, research, and care, and to reduce disparities in cancer outcomes." He left that role when he announced his bid for president.

After his comments, Biden was heckled by a protestor. The audience booed the man, but Biden responded calmly.

"No, no, that’s OK. No, no, no," Biden said. "This is not a Trump rally. Let him go."

The former vice president had been going through Iowa on several campaign stops at the same time as President Donald Trump. Biden called Trump an "existential threat" to the United States. Trump, for his part, criticized Biden for his age and for being "weak mentally."
Click to expand...

I'm not going to crack on a guy who wants to fight Cancer, who lost a son to it. But, the unasked question is still there - if he doesn't win, does he not give a shit about cancer? Can it only be cured if HE wins?
 
what do you call an unasked question which is asked? :)

he'll have rather more power and resources at his disposal if he wins the election. isn't that the unspoken spoken answer?

alasdair
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top