September 26, 2019

Ukrainegate is Trump's homage to Watergate

and Nixon: an attempt to use the government and other means to denigrate political opponents, and then a coverup to prevent anyone from learning what happened. Barr is Trump's Attorney General equivalent of Mitchell. The difference is that Nixon and his men were far more intelligent. Trump doesn't even understand fully how deeply he has messed up.

September 21, 2019

Are there websites that compare the aggregate plans for each candidate in terms of benefits/costs?

I find it difficult to get the whole picture comparing the benefits that are proposed with the costs and the specific taxes needed to implement.

In addition, showing the changes in GDP ($19 trillion/year in 2017), government costs ($4.1 trillion in 2017), and government revenue ($3.4 trillion in 2017) would be very useful in determining how people will be affected and whether plans are affordable as proposed.

Tables for each candidate with programs, costs and taxes would be very useful.

Is there such a website or blog?

August 18, 2019

I believe next to defeating Trump. the most important thing a candidate can do in be an influencer."

Likewise, the most important thing a President can do is be an "influencer"-- especially in the modern era of social networks. Let me define this a little more strictly than is done on social networks. I mean more than just having a large collection of followers.

From history, TR (progressive era) and FDR (New Deal and liberalism) were influencers by my definition-- Americans changed their world outlook because of them. Unfortunately, Reagan (modern conservatism) was an influencer too-- Reagan made antipathy toward the government and aggressive self-interest popular and they remain so. Trump is an influencer too, not so much policy-wise but his crass ugly behavior is redefining what is an acceptable public demeanor. History seems to suggest that one needs to win the Presidency to really influence the body politic, but perhaps that is becoming somewhat less true in the era of social networks.

If a candidate can actually change hearts and minds about everyone in the country being in this place we call America together, he or she will have succeeded regardless of whether they win the nomination. Can he/she promote the positive role of the government, civil/equal and other rights (health, freedom from poverty, opportunity, college education, clean environment) for all? This counts for a lot. Such a person might be the next FDR, but even if he or she is not, perhaps his/her actions will help bring about the next FDR by having shifted public opinion so that the political environment is permissive.

To the extent that our candidates can get people to think about and maybe change their minds about these key ideas, they are doing a great service independently of whether they ultimately win the nomination. I find it encouraging that many if not most of our candidates are trying to become "influencers' before they reach the Presidency. A good example of what i mean is Beto O' Rourke going to gun shows to discuss an assault weapons ban with the attendees, and then making such discussions public-- that's the kind of thing that may eventually change minds.

July 17, 2019

Democrats should run on "National unity and good [better] jobs"

From an opinion piece in the NY Times by Thomas Friedman
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/trump-2020.html
(Ignore the tabloid title and look for the key ideas inside)

I think the following is a winning message for a general election and a very good summary of how Democrats can craft a strong economic message that appeals to everyone but Republicans who hate the government:


"That doesn’t mean a Democratic candidate should stand for nothing, just keep it simple: Focus on building national unity and good jobs. I say national unity because many Americans are terrified and troubled by how bitterly divided, and therefore paralyzed, the country has become. There is an opening for a unifier.

And I say good jobs because when the wealth of the top 1 percent equals that of the bottom 90 percent, we do have to redivide the pie. I favor raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to subsidize universal pre-K education and to reduce the burden of student loans. Let’s give kids a head start and college grads a fresh start.

....
[But] The winning message is to double down on redividing the pie in ways that give everyone an opportunity for a slice while also growing the pie sustainably. Democrats should focus on how we create sustainable wealth and good jobs, which is the American public-private partnership model: Government enriches the soil and entrepreneurs grow the companies.

It has always been what’s made us rich, and we’ve drifted away from it: investing in quality education and basic scientific research; promulgating the right laws and regulations to incentivize risk-taking and prevent recklessness and monopolies that can cripple free markets; encouraging legal immigration of both high-energy and high-I.Q. foreigners; and building the world’s best enabling infrastructure — ports, roads, bandwidth and basic social safety nets."

July 16, 2019

The "Corrupter": the most descriptive way to refer to Trump

He corrupts the morals and ideals of America by his rhetoric for political expediency. He moral bankruptcy exacerbates political divisions between the Right and Left. The love or leave it rhetoric gone racist is just the latest example. He has corrupted the Republican party something I never thought possible given their history of dog whistles and cynicism.

May 25, 2019

A Presidential Obstruction Select Committee?

Perhaps the House should create a "Presidential Obstruction Select Committee" similar to the Watergate Select Committee 45 years ago, before proceeding with impeachment hearings. The focus will be on acts of the Chief Executive to obstruct investigations by the Special Prosecutor and Congress. The key difference in the structure was that the Watergate Select Committee was in the Senate and this would be in the House, but the House can create such committees as they did with Benghazi. Thoughts?

April 19, 2019

Approve a bill making it illegal for a campaign NOT to report potential foreign interference

The House should propose and approve a bill making it illegal for a campaign NOT to report knowledge of potential foreign interference to the FBI and Federal Election Commission. Make it a felony. Close the obvious loophole that prevented Trump and his campaign from being charged with "collusion". This is needed to prevent repeats and highlight the seriousness of what happened. Would be interesting to see if the Senate went along. Trump would be placed in an embossing position if he vetoed such a bill.

March 23, 2019

Which candidates have been focusing on jobs, especially in the rust belt

that pay well and that can confer a sense of pride. People in the rust belt see those slipping away. Not easily solved, and certainly haven't been hearing too much focus on these yet. What ideas are out there? Retraining, sure that's a good idea-- but people want to know that there will be an employer for the new job they have been trained for. This may be key issue that determines who wins the general election.

December 31, 2018

The coming Democratic primary is sure to be divisive

Why? Past history-- every contested primary since at least 1992 has been (well 2000 was somewhat milder-- Bill Bradley did not get much traction). On DU, just look at the attacks in 2004, 2008, 2016 and continuing sniping about Bernie Sanders even now two years later. The second reason is the sheer number of expected candidates will create a huge division among Democratic voters about whom to choose. It's not going to be a picnic, as the inevitable attacks begin, bolstered by outside forces interested in sowing division.

What needs to happen? Democratic voters need to hold their tribalistic urges in check, so that later there can be a unified front against Trump no matter who the eventual nominee. Everyone should begin the what if game right now with each of the candidates running (as they declare). What if so an so actually wins the nomination? How will I feel and what will I do to help him or her win?

November 19, 2018

Jim Carrey "Would Love" To See Kamala Harris & Beto O'Rourke Win The Presidential Race

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jim-carrey-love-see-kamala-223612888.html
Deadline Deadline 6 hours ago

Jim Carrey is using his artistry and political platform on Twitter to not only alert people to “the demon that’s controlling us” he said at Vulture Festival in Los Angeles on Sunday, but also he wants people to know he “would love” to see Beto O’Rourke and Kamala Harris in the presidential race, although he has no issues with Hilary Clinton.

“I don’t think she would be a bad president,” said the star of Showtime’s Kidding. “I believe she knows what she’s doing, but the fact that so many people are conflicted about her, whether that’s right or wrong, is a problem and will lose votes, will lose swing votes…I would love to see Beto O’Rourke and Kamala Harris. I think she’s fantastic, and he’s a really incredible guy.”

Carrey then got a huge cheer from the festival audience when he added, “I would love in this decade to be able to vote for somebody who is not the lesser of evils.”

---------------
Carrey thinks Harris and O'Rourke are two strong candidates for President. I agree. Both would be incredibly good candidates. As to potential problems with Harris, I think he's wrong and that she can be a terrific unifying candidate.