2020 Dem POTUS candidate catch all discussion thread

[rgw]

It me

https://twitter.com/abc/status/1090055156543062016

[rgw]

Also everyone who booed is a bootlicker.

[92tide]

It me

https://twitter.com/abc/status/1090055156543062016

his product roll-out doesn't seem to be that well received

[MattinBama]

Have seen some stories starting to pop up on Twitter from people that have dealt with Schultz and his generosity of giving out "loose teabags and a custom fancy made gift card that ended up having $5 on it" as a gift after a million dollar deal, as well as $3 gift cards (when the lowest you can even buy is $5) that are custom made that he gave out to someone else.

[rjtide]

i have a cousin who works for NASA as an engineer......his salary depends on federal funding. my father has been a college professor for > 30 yrs......his salary depends in part on federal funding. my cousin is a cancer researcher/cell biologist at the cleveland clinic......his salary comes from NIH funding. i'm a primary care physician......i don't do concierge medicine and so i see pts on medicare and, therefore, receive payment from CMS. i can go on an on. my point is we're at a certain level of gov't dependency now anyway and when you start to talk about cutting back on gov't spending, it has to be what many others (boddhisattva i believe is one) have said......cut out the waste and make a serious effort at instituting efficiency across all federal gov't departments. i get howard shultz's stance on trying to cut down on our federal deficit.....and most certainly DO NOT agree on things like 'free college for all'......but the cut back on gov't spending is going to prove more difficult that what anyone envisions it to be. it would take ALL of DC....and the country as a whole....to get on board with such an idea. and it will surely take a generational politician/statesperson to convince the country to undertake such steps and to do it in a smart manner.

[TIDE-HSV]

i have a cousin who works for NASA as an engineer......his salary depends on federal funding. my father has been a college professor for > 30 yrs......his salary depends in part on federal funding. my cousin is a cancer researcher/cell biologist at the cleveland clinic......his salary comes from NIH funding. i'm a primary care physician......i don't do concierge medicine and so i see pts on medicare and, therefore, receive payment from CMS. i can go on an on. my point is we're at a certain level of gov't dependency now anyway and when you start to talk about cutting back on gov't spending, it has to be what many others (boddhisattva i believe is one) have said......cut out the waste and make a serious effort at instituting efficiency across all federal gov't departments. i get howard shultz's stance on trying to cut down on our federal deficit.....and most certainly DO NOT agree on things like 'free college for all'......but the cut back on gov't spending is going to prove more difficult that what anyone envisions it to be. it would take ALL of DC....and the country as a whole....to get on board with such an idea. and it will surely take a generational politician/statesperson to convince the country to undertake such steps and to do it in a smart manner.

I agree that "free college for all" is downright counter-productive and is really just a campaign tool. One thing this country badly needs is to get away from the idea that college is even appropriate for all. I'm just as proud of my granddaughter who's studying marine welding as I am of the one who graduated SCL in political science from Clark University...

[rjtide]

I agree that "free college for all" is downright counter-productive and is really just a campaign tool. One thing this country badly needs is to get away from the idea that college is even appropriate for all. I'm just as proud of my granddaughter who's studying marine welding as I am of the one who graduated SCL in political science from Clark University...

agree re: free college being a campaign tool. at the risk of hijacking the thread (not by intent tho) many would argue so is 'medicare for all' and 'climate change is our greatest short- and long term threat as far as national security' etc. again, my point in all of this is the federal gov't is intertwined in our lives so much that to try to unravel it/cut back on that gov't dependency will be extremely difficult, not only from a regulatory perspective but, i would argue more from a monetary perspective. the concern i have, and have always had, is that a government bureaucracy tends to be a self sustaining and an ever growing entity itself......it exists to get bigger and to continue to use more resources (ie tax dollars) by its very design which leads to inevitable inefficiency. improving that inherent inefficiency would go a long way towards reducing our national debt. good luck in trying to get that done is all i'm saying. the federal gov't shutdown, albeit an extreme example, showed us just how tough it will be.......and before anyone accuses me of being an advocate of shutting down DC......please, save the drama. i'm not at all for that. quite the contrary we need a solid, reliable gov't in order for the country to function. what i'm saying is at its current size and spending levels its completely inefficient.

[twofbyc]

Again, a huge discrepancy between perception and reality.
I don’t think college should be “free”; I just think those who benefit MOST should foot the tuition bill and not the students. (How quickly some forget the 50s and 60s.)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CharminTide]

Have seen some stories starting to pop up on Twitter from people that have dealt with Schultz and his generosity of giving out "loose teabags and a custom fancy made gift card that ended up having $5 on it" as a gift after a million dollar deal, as well as $3 gift cards (when the lowest you can even buy is $5) that are custom made that he gave out to someone else.

So Dems start talking about taxing the super rich and limiting the influence of corporate money in politics and then suddenly this guy waltzes in with no ideas and says he's running as an independent? Nope, Schultz can screw right off. Nothing would make him happier than to siphon away enough Democratic votes to keep the GOP in power.

[92tide]

So Dems start talking about taxing the super rich and limiting the influence of corporate money in politics and then suddenly this guy waltzes in with no ideas and says he's running as an independent? Nope, Schultz can screw right off. Nothing would make him happier than to siphon away enough Democratic votes to keep the GOP in power.

this tweet from nate silver sort of gets at whats going on and explains a lot more than schultz' vanity campaign

Schultz's answer here reminds me of when you get stuck on a plane, or at a party, talking with a guy* who learns you cover politics for a living and thinks he's knows his [crap] when he's just spouting cliches.

*Always a guy. Often older and wealthy, but not always.

[rjtide]

Again, a huge discrepancy between perception and reality.
I don’t think college should be “free”; I just think those who benefit MOST should foot the tuition bill and not the students. (How quickly some forget the 50s and 60s.)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cost of higher education, IMO, should be borne by the individual getting that education.

[jthomas666]

i have a cousin who works for NASA as an engineer......his salary depends on federal funding. my father has been a college professor for > 30 yrs......his salary depends in part on federal funding. my cousin is a cancer researcher/cell biologist at the cleveland clinic......his salary comes from NIH funding. i'm a primary care physician......i don't do concierge medicine and so i see pts on medicare and, therefore, receive payment from CMS. i can go on an on. my point is we're at a certain level of gov't dependency now anyway and when you start to talk about cutting back on gov't spending, it has to be what many others (boddhisattva i believe is one) have said......cut out the waste and make a serious effort at instituting efficiency across all federal gov't departments. i get howard shultz's stance on trying to cut down on our federal deficit.....and most certainly DO NOT agree on things like 'free college for all'......but the cut back on gov't spending is going to prove more difficult that what anyone envisions it to be. it would take ALL of DC....and the country as a whole....to get on board with such an idea. and it will surely take a generational politician/statesperson to convince the country to undertake such steps and to do it in a smart manner.

Few politicians on either side are willing to get down in the weeds to trim out said waste, and few voters care--they've been conditioned to hear "cut govt spending" and don't care about the details.

The primary problem with free college for all is that there are a lot of people out there who have no business going to college. Not a knock on them, just a statement of fact.

Now, if you want to roll trade academies into that, you might have something. Some kind of junior college program that combines trade skills with classes on managing small business would be a godsend.

We need to get these proposals away from pie in the sky fluff to things that will address specific needs (see our nation's crumbling infrastructure for a prime example).

[TIDE-HSV]

agree re: free college being a campaign tool. at the risk of hijacking the thread (not by intent tho) many would argue so is 'medicare for all' and 'climate change is our greatest short- and long term threat as far as national security' etc. again, my point in all of this is the federal gov't is intertwined in our lives so much that to try to unravel it/cut back on that gov't dependency will be extremely difficult, not only from a regulatory perspective but, i would argue more from a monetary perspective. the concern i have, and have always had, is that a government bureaucracy tends to be a self sustaining and an ever growing entity itself......it exists to get bigger and to continue to use more resources (ie tax dollars) by its very design which leads to inevitable inefficiency. improving that inherent inefficiency would go a long way towards reducing our national debt. good luck in trying to get that done is all i'm saying. the federal gov't shutdown, albeit an extreme example, showed us just how tough it will be.......and before anyone accuses me of being an advocate of shutting down DC......please, save the drama. i'm not at all for that. quite the contrary we need a solid, reliable gov't in order for the country to function. what i'm saying is at its current size and spending levels its completely inefficient.

For curiosity, would you favor a single payer system (no matter what it's called)?