Democratic Primary Candidates Policy Review
Added 2019-05-12 02:52:45 +0000 UTCHere is the extra tape. Thanks patrons!
Comments
Elizabeth W. Bernie S. and Pete B.
tweeks
2019-05-30 20:56:46 +0000 UTCI don't want to harp on about it, but I feel like many news goups and other commentators have treated Yang and UBI as a bit of a joke without deeply thinking about it, just assuming that it's too radical to work. I'll admit, it's a bit of a moonshot. But we actually did a literal moonshot back in the 60s, and made it work. Even if Yang isn't President, I think UBI or something similar is something we need to seriously consider and move toward. Think of the difference it would make: 40% of adults can't come up with $400 unexpectedly. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/business/economy/fed-400-dollar-survey.html That problem is solved by the Freedom Dividend. Even in my own life, $1000 extra per month would make the most massive difference. I make $35,000 per year as a teacher in the Bay Area, one of the most expensive places to live in the world. I save about $4000 per year at best, which could be wiped out with a single injury. $12,000 extra per year would add roughly 1/3 more income, which I would frankly save and eventually use to buy land to build my own house. For the SF Bay Area, I'm poor. But I have what I need and don't feel poor, and there are thousands who are worse off than me, for whom $1000 per month would make life more than merely not quite yet terrible enough to commit suicide over. We have an extreme homelessness problem here.
William Evan Barnes
2019-05-24 03:57:15 +0000 UTCI should also point out that Yang's other policies are fucking great, like you said, but also much more clearly thought out and replicated than those of other candidates. Again, check out all the writing on his website. What I see from him is a candidate who is intelligent, thoughtful, cogent, compassionate, and charismatic. I think he's similar to Obama in those ways and could therefore be a really good candidate. I hate thinking about it this way, but apparently we Americans like to vote based on who would make a good drinking buddy, and I think he's got that
William Evan Barnes
2019-05-23 22:17:24 +0000 UTCI think you all wrote off Andrew Yang and UBI without really grasping the math behind it. He actually has it spelled out really well on his website, and the math looks solid. I'm not an economist, but other countries have VAT and get by better than we do with the programs it funds. Additionally, we already have UBI in Alaska, of all places! It's funded by taxing the oil industry, and it works great! Yang wants to treat the tech industry like the new oil industry, which it absolutely is. Just think of it: Amazon made more money last year than a lot of countries in the world, but paid $0 in taxes. There's a way to structure this so that the most successful people and businesses in society help to take care of the rest of us. After all, no man is an island. Everyone working in or society creates an environment in which these businesses flourish and become wealthy. We owe it to each other to take care of each other in this constructed ecosystem
William Evan Barnes
2019-05-23 22:05:38 +0000 UTCI think my three have to be Warren for President, then either Beto or Gillibrand for Veep. From what I remember about Booker is he TALKS a liberal game, but in reality he plays a pretty centrist one. It helps when evaluating a candidate to not just look at their platform but also to look at their political history, and Booker smells. Same goes for Biden. Biden's experienced, but he's very clearly the Hillary Clinton of this cycle: Centrist, tone-deaf, definitely going to be very status-quo, pro-establishment, and will try to use liberal mantras in the primary and then show his true centrist colors once nominated, letting his "I will only take care of my donors" flag fly high and as visibly as possible, just as Hillary Clinton did. I expect the DNC to throw their full weight behind him, as will Wall Street. If he's nominated, we're guaranteed another four years of Trump. I used to be a Bernie Bro, but his age tells me he probably wouldn't make it through his first term. And he lost me a bit more on his gun control policy positions. I'm surprised he's taking that stance now. I've learned through history and experience ANY time someone says "state rights" or "we should let the state decide" that you can swap that response with whatever the conservative position on the issue is. Those phrases are used by people who support conservative party lines on a position, but know the law and facts DO NOT agree with them, so by trying to promote the idea states should get to choose they know that the (Usually more conservative.) executives and legislatures will go with what they want. So Bernie's off my list. Then again, I'm actually true to the liberal stereotype on gun rights: I don't just want gun control, I want the Second Amendment repealed and replaced with something like "unless you have a damn good justifiable reason to have ANY sort of firearm you're not getting one" law like Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom have. The realist tells me I should just support anyone who wants universal background checks AND waiting periods.
Yaro Kasear
2019-05-17 19:05:19 +0000 UTCWarren Bernie That's about it If these two could just run together as P and VP, I would be happy. Don't care which order. Not too worried about age, as long as the right VP is in place.
Hidin' from Broseidon Biden
2019-05-16 02:40:46 +0000 UTCParliaments are for grown ups.
Kernan Coleman
2019-05-15 23:38:38 +0000 UTCAmen. A consumption-based economy isn't sustainable. Too many intelligent people don't/won't see that very, very basic fact.
Tove
2019-05-15 21:40:03 +0000 UTCYeah, I'd take a parliamentary system any day, with a much lower ratio of representative to represented than we have now. Too many people represented by too few.
Tove
2019-05-15 21:37:56 +0000 UTCThat last is the important point; no matter how much I might hate whoever wins the primary, they have my vote. Period.
Tove
2019-05-15 21:35:17 +0000 UTCBooker and Warren are my top two. Harris is a distant 3rd. Inslee is interesting. All that said, Gillibrand is a hard pass for me. As a Minnesotan, I was offended that she was going after our senator and calling for his resignation, and it smacked of a big state New Yorker bullying the person from a smaller state into doing something. Even though it was the right thing to do, I don't think it was her place to be telling Minnesotans what's best for Minnesota.
Mike B
2019-05-15 13:34:44 +0000 UTCGillibrand and Booker (tied for 1st) and 3rd Warren. They all have a decent amount of experience, education, policy proposals, and voting records that I can get behind. Sanders and Biden are too damn old.
Haeley Curry
2019-05-14 23:03:01 +0000 UTCWarren, Booker, Harris On the topic of age, I'm less worried than you guys are. According to the to the most recent life table released by the cdc from for 2015, women in the US are expected to live for 81 years (Men: 76 years). Which is only a bit better than the numbers you used on in the episode, but that's the diffence of a third term. And to get a better estimation, table three says a person between the ages of 69-70 is expected to live for another 17 years, which is enough time to tie with FDR for most consecutive terms as president. Glory hole.
Samhain, not pronounced Sam-Hane
2019-05-14 17:23:48 +0000 UTCPlease think about releasing this for everyone, it’s a great breakdown and I’d love to share it with my politically minded friends.
TheBeardOffMyBack
2019-05-14 11:20:52 +0000 UTCTop 5 Warren Gillibrand Yang - not for the UBI, but because he’s the first candidate who is really talking about the necessity of transitioning our economy out of a GDP and hyper capitalist model and into a more sustainable and human welfare based system. (Side note: I’m much more of a UBAssets fan because I feel it better addresses the same issues without the same automatic inflation problem) Booker Sanders Bonus 6 : Harris - because I’d love to see her DESTROY Trump in the debates.
TheBeardOffMyBack
2019-05-14 11:19:06 +0000 UTCTo me, one of the biggest questions for these candidates is their plan to deal with the mechanisms of our government. There is no question that our politics operate in a fundamentally different way that they did 2-3 decades ago. This article you cited didn’t address candidates’ positions on Supreme Court size, eliminating the filibuster or protecting voting rights and federalizing election policies. To me all these policies you discussed mean absolutely nothing if our president has no plan for actually governing and getting them in place. With that in mind, Warren, Harris, and Gillibrand are my top 3 and I like Booker, Beto, and Mayor Pete as VP candidates. Let’s pair a get me fired up and excited guy with a badass get shit done lady. Just saying.
Angela Adcock
2019-05-14 07:38:20 +0000 UTCHarris Warren, Gillibrand, Pronouced Jll-a-brand
Cynthia Abawi
2019-05-14 06:02:14 +0000 UTCCan you post a link to the article/website you got the candidate info from?
Patrick Carr
2019-05-14 01:34:24 +0000 UTCOh dear, Tom. Whatever you may or may not think about Israel, it has a fair electoral system, in common with many, many countries in Europe. I guess it's difficult to understand if you come from an undemocratic system, like the US, where there is a body (the electoral college) which skews the popular vote, where every state has two senators with equal voting powers, be they representing Wyoming (with just over half a million people) or California (with just over half a million people... plus another 39 million people). Oh, and a first-past-post system which effectively means a two party state. In actually democratic countries, there are multiple parties (i.e. more that two). Using a system of proportional representation, each party is represented in parliament proportionately to the percentage of votes it receives (usually subject to a minimum requirement). That means if you get 40% of the votes, you get 40% of the seats in parliament. If you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Israeli_legislative_election you will see the final results of the Israeli election. In fact, Likud and Blue & White tied with 35 parliamentary seats each (out of 120 seats). Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party "won" the election by receiving 26.46% of the votes against Blue & White's 26.13% of the votes. The question is are Likud and Blue & White sufficiently close in policy to form a two party coalition? It's reasonable to suggest that "no" would be the answer to that question because Blue & White was formed by a number of opposition parties to oust what they see as the corrupt Netanyahu, which they may yet succeed in doing. Clearly, 61 members of the Knesset would need to vote for a new prime minister to form a majority government or fewer than that number if a party or parties chose to abstain and then a minority government could be formed. In that case, when legislation was voted on, there would be no guarantees as to whether it would be passed or not. Eleven separate parties gained seats in the Knesset. Either of the parties gaining 35 seats would need 26 additional seats from other parties to form a majority coalition government. There appear to be numerous means of achieving that number. I have little knowledge of the left/right leanings of Israeli political parties but I think there is a long road ahead before a government - which, remember will represent over 50% of voters - can be formed. German governments since 1949 are of interest, here. Every single government has been a coalition government. The advantage of coalition governments is that a single party - that does not represent the majority of voters - cannot force its will upon the masses, it is always moderated by a minority party or parties. That is a good thing because it stops despotic governments riding roughshod over the whole population while receiving less than half the votes. Sorry, but democracy is so important and to ridicule a democratic system - when, to be fair, you live in one of the least democratic nations on the planet - is a little unfortunate. Anyway, keep up the good work, you haven't lost a patron.
Jon Pierson
2019-05-14 00:00:08 +0000 UTCI like Warren and Harris for many different reasons, but mostly because I want a powerful, unflappable woman in the White House for purposes both practical and symbolic. I like Buttigeig and I think his run is historic and he might make a decent VP. I like Sanders' positions on many issues and also have concerns about his age, but perhaps not as much as you guys do. You left out that Williamson is a new age nut. Really. Look up the shit she espouses. Just bonkers. I won't actually discuss the primary with people IRL because of the vitriol and purity tests. I'm so done with the magnification of people's flaws into captial offenses. I'll throw my full weight behind whoever wins the primary though. I voted for Bernie in the last primary and happily voted for Hillary in the general.
Kernan Coleman
2019-05-13 22:41:33 +0000 UTCWarren, Booker, undecided. Like you I am very concerned with age, so I can't find myself supporting sanders. I like Warren the best by a mile, because I think the best way to fix our problems as a nation is through economic means and she has not only the best background in economics but also good plans to enact change. With a fixed economy our other issues will be much more tractable (crime, security, wealth inequality, climate change, etc). Booker is more friendly to certain corporations than I would like, but his policy proposals and voting record put him at least largely aligned with myself. Much of his corporate ties come from him pandering to his home state, much like Sanders punting on gun control because that's what his state wanted.
Stolen corporate credit card
2019-05-13 20:09:09 +0000 UTCIs it bad to hope for a young, healthy running mate if these dinosaurs get nominated? I feel guilty feeling that way for some reason.
A turn knees general
2019-05-13 02:16:13 +0000 UTCOkay, regardless of my views of them, you kept butchering two names and I feel you gotta correct this. You're in an audio medium, after all. Kept wincing. Kirsten Gillibrand (KEER sten JILL eh brand) and Kamala (not a chameleon) Harris (KAH mah lah). That aside, I know you weren't going into the baggage, but some of those candidates who sounded great have a fair share. Booker is very corporate-friendly. Biden also; his blue-collar rep is bullshit when you look at his voting record. Pete B. (not even going to try to type that) has some gentrification issues he's going to have to explain. Harris' time as a prosecutor is kinda horrifying. Beto is an empty shirt; guy has no views on anything. He has energy, but that's it. Who gives a shit? Naturally, there's a lot more, but those stood out. Regardless, good stuff.
Tove
2019-05-13 01:10:22 +0000 UTCAlso thanks for pointing out that Biden is just as old as sanders, it drives me crazy for people to say sanders is too old and then support Biden.
First Atheist President
2019-05-13 00:50:21 +0000 UTCMy top 3 are warren, sanders, and buttegeig. I think it will come down to the debates and how they handle themselves in that setting. That will determine alot about who doesn't just have the best ideas, but who can also destroy trump in a debate.
First Atheist President
2019-05-13 00:48:35 +0000 UTCMy top 3 would be Warren, Beto, and Sanders. Warren has so many great ideas and I love that she has plans on how they would work too. Beto is a close second for me. In some recent polls he seems to be the candidate with the best chance to beat Trump, and I like the idea of a young candidate going up against him in the general election. He has the most ambitious plan to fight climate change ($5 trillion) out of any candidate and I think it should be getting a lot more attention than it has been.
Robert
2019-05-12 17:32:05 +0000 UTCGood solid rundown. Top 5 Booker, Gillibrand, Warren, Beto, and Sanders I kinda hope to see any of the younger 3 (or Harris) as the Veep on the ticket come the end of this run.
Inquiring Raven
2019-05-12 04:33:11 +0000 UTC
