2020 US presidential election

The only way the GOP stands a chance to win anything forever in terms of the White House is through the electoral college... with the Supreme Court being conservative for the foreseeable future, don't hold your breath re the electoral college being abolished.  Even if the Dems get Congress, Senate, and Presidency and get a constitutional amendment passed (needs a supermajority remember; not 50+%, 60+%)... the supreme court would 100% strike it down.

It's such a long shot, it's not even worth considering.  Similar to the right to bear arms.

EC doesn't always favor the GOP, though. Perhaps the best hope is an environment that favors the Democratic party arises and manages to persist multiple cycles in a row until a couple of GOP states decide to forego.

I'm not sure it would need Congressional approval. It would certainly go to the Supreme Court.

To be fair, when I say we're not that far away, I mean that there aren't actually THAT many more states that would need to join to make NPV a thing. However, getting over that hurdle would be nearly impossible, probably for another multiple decades at least.

The obvious quicker fix is DC/Puerto Rico statehood.

CBarca wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:If you expand the votes of the dead to those of direct family, how does the math change?

It might be late and I'm not thinking right, but I'm not sure I understand this question. Is there another way to word it? Although I'm not sure I would go through the work to properly answer the question, haha

Presumably, Trump didn't lose the votes of only those that were dead so they couldn't vote for him, but also a significant portion of those that lost a direct family member to Covid. I wonder how those would've voted had Covid not taken one of their family members, although that's probably too much work for idle speculation.

CBarca wrote:

Also a very good read:

https://twitter.com/shaunjlawson/status/1324431788584873985

The thread is good, but I'm a bit confused. He spends all this time shitting on Bernie and praising Biden, but then argues that AOC and moving left is the future of the democratic party?

If his argument is that Dems need to find a more coherent platform and messaging strategy (one that doesn't involve the kind of coalition building only a strong and experienced candidate like Biden was able to pull off), I don't disagree with him. However, right now it isn't clear that moving to the left is effective to that end.

Not sure either, perhaps he's anticipating that AOC would be able to appeal to Texas more because of some combination of her hispanic heritage, charismatic person, etc? He seems to think that in 2028+ that's the only state that will count (with some reason) and the mid-west (bar Illinois) will be lost to the Dems.

CBarca wrote:
With respect to the electoral college, the answer is to abolish it.

We're not that far away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Hadn't heard about this, but it seems that the constitutionality is kinda hazy so I'm not sure if it would make it's way past a supreme court vote. Still should be attempted though.

https://prospect.org/economy/biden-poised-to-name-ron-klain-janet-yellen-to-key-positions/

like Yellen a lot, but I really wanted to watch Wall Street sweat bullets with Warren as treasurer

Warren would have tanked the stock market... which is the last thing the US needed dealing with a recession and the pandemic.

Biden needs to reassure the business community as much as possible with his appointment.  No time for gambles and experimentation.  It would crater the economy.

The further away progressive like "The Squad" are from having any meaningful power, the better. They are nutcases when it comes to economics.

well, yes, of course. But would've been great to see nevertheless. And if the stock market tanks because the Treasurer actually enforces its regulations, that would've probably caught up with the market at some point.

Isn’t it time, you progressives accepted the fact that America is no where close to accepting the progressive agenda. trump has convinced 50% of Americans that progressives = socialism = communism. None of your candidates would have beaten Trump.

At least with Biden, America can begin to resolve the damage and erosion of rights, Trump caused. He has to resolve the pandemic, economy, racial injustice, climate change improvements as well as world relationships with one hand tied behind his back. The only way to do that is compromising with the republicans.

Your progressive agenda has to wait at least 2 years.

With regards to the economy, there are several things that have to happen in first quarter of new year.

1. The virus spread has to flatten the curve. You don’t get that under control, the economy continues to suffer.
2. A huge stimulus has to be approved.
3. The vaccines have to be approved and distribution system put in place.
4. The low interest policies of fed have to continue.

"Same thing happened in the "there's no observers" lawsuit. Judge asked if there were any GOP observers, the Trump team responded "A non-zero number." Judge didn't like that and asked, "As a member of the bar of this court," meaning "your license is now on the line, so don't lie or weasel." Trump lawyer answered "yes."

Case dismissed."

this is unbelievable

Rudy Gulliani may be even dumber than Donald himself. They are made for each other

Rudy Gulliani is a certified moron, imagine getting punked by Borat.

sportsczy wrote:
The further away progressive like "The Squad" are from having any meaningful power, the better. They are nutcases when it comes to economics.

Why are they nutcases? Because you disagree with their political ideology when it comes to economics? I mean Florida, a state that went for Trump and has 2 Republicans Senators and a Republican Governor, voted for a $15 an hour minimum wage, a key progressive economic policy.

People keep saying the squad are radical for wanting stuff like this and then we see it happen in the very states calling them radical. There is a disconnect here, no?

Don't worry so much about the final outcome. It's more of a courtesy and custom to concede so that the transfer of power is done in an orderly and peaceful manner. It's not an obligation.

So Trump is being a prick... what's new.

Legally, if races are within a certain range (every state is a bit different), you can ask for a recount. That's what's happening. It will be over in a week or so... and then, unless you can prove significant enough shenanigans that would change the outcome (Trump can't), the results are certified by each state.

Once all the results are certified, the electoral college case their vote in mid-December and the new president is officially named.

So worse case, you're dealing with another 4 weeks of nonsense. It won't change anything.

McLewis wrote:

sportsczy wrote:
The further away progressive like "The Squad" are from having any meaningful power, the better.  They are nutcases when it comes to economics.

Why are they nutcases? Because you disagree with their political ideology when it comes to economics? I mean Florida, a state that went for Trump and has 2 Republicans Senators and a Republican Governor, voted for a $15 an hour minimum wage, a key progressive economic policy.

People keep saying the squad are radical for wanting stuff like this and then we see it happen in the very states calling them radical. There is a disconnect here, no?

They don't understand the basic concept of competitiveness in a global economy.  Their ideas are nothing new... it's existed in France for decades.  They're very nice-sounding; but have no chance of working. It's been a disaster for France economically as well as other places (such as Greece).

Not saying everything about the progressive agenda is invalid...  but overall, it's completely clueless.

the last dance with none other than putin at the piano

sportsczy wrote:

McLewis wrote:

sportsczy wrote:
The further away progressive like "The Squad" are from having any meaningful power, the better.  They are nutcases when it comes to economics.

Why are they nutcases? Because you disagree with their political ideology when it comes to economics? I mean Florida, a state that went for Trump and has 2 Republicans Senators and a Republican Governor, voted for a $15 an hour minimum wage, a key progressive economic policy.

People keep saying the squad are radical for wanting stuff like this and then we see it happen in the very states calling them radical. There is a disconnect here, no?

They don't understand the basic concept of competitiveness in a global economy.  Their ideas are nothing new... it's existed in France for decades.  They're very nice-sounding; but have no chance of working. It's been a disaster for France economically as well as other places (such as Greece).

Not saying everything about the progressive agenda is invalid...  but overall, it's completely clueless.

You can't apply failures in France to project and predict potential failures here. Far too many variables.

When was the last time we saw actual progressive policies on a national scale in this country? I'm thinking the New Deal, which got us out of a depression and provided us with the foundation for all of that prosperity we would enjoy for decades after.

Unfortunately, 80 years of conservative fear-mongering, while still benefiting from those progressive policies, has poisoned the national conscience and has made normal progressive policies into untenable, draconian dogma, which they are not.

If conservative economic policies worked, the wealth gap wouldn't be so wide as it is now. Something has to be done to close it. Conservatives have no interest in doing so. They're only interested in recycling useless, impossible platitudes like "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" when very few of them did that themselves.

Hopefully the Dems win these 2 seats in Georgia so we can see some progressive policies enacted under Biden, but it wouldn't surprise me if we didn't.

If we win the 2 seats in GA (we won't) we still won't see progressive action. That's the slimmest "majority" possible, and progressives aren't even the dominant faction in the Democratic party

CBarca wrote:If we win the 2 seats in GA (we won't) we still won't see progressive action. That's the slimmest "majority" possible, and progressives aren't even the dominant faction in the Democratic party

Yep that would make Joe Manchin the most powerful man in the Democratic party.

Just as a clarification, fiscal conservatives aren’t necessarily against raising taxes when the time
is right. G bush the first did it and Eisenhower kept taxes high if I recall correctly.

What fiscal conservatives are not for McLewis is excessive “bloat” or bureaucracy and a bunch of unnecessary spending and programs. Remember, the current Republican Party is NOT fiscally conservative and that is something that has to be said. Sometimes being fiscally prudent is not something that’s just a republican thing, it isn’t really nowadays. Bill Clinton’s policies are a good example of this

What progressives are on the money about is their stance on social issues @McLewis. No one wants to live in the dark ages anymore. It’s way long past for things like marijuana legalization and saving our planet. Criminal justice reform, not being OK with racism. I can’t compromise on those things. People THINK that stuff like that is not important but it impacts people’s lives a lot more then people think.

Yes you can @McLewis.  That's the biggest failing in the US in general today... this arrogance that what happens or has happened in the rest of the world somehow doesn't apply to us.  Biggest current example:  Coronavirus.  If we had half a brain on us, we'd go to Japan, South Korea, etc. and see what they were doing right... and try to apply those things here in an adapted way of course.

What happened in France and in Europe with failed progressive programs are, at their core, not that different from what would happen in the US or anywhere with a certain population for that matter.  It completely disregards the competitive nature of today's world trade and economics... you can't just think about the short term benefits; you need to understand the implication in terms of being competitive.

I'll give you a very simple example:  Great social programs, very comfortable minimum wage and free education + healthcare.  The French government could not afford the cost of all this with it's existing tax system.  So it taxes both corporations and high income individuals more.  What happened?  The cost of producing goods went way up for companies and they could not compete against their global competitors (most notably Germany and China).  Wealthy people left France.  The government got a larger piece of a smaller pie...  a net very negative in terms of tax income coming in.  The economy has been stagnant for decades as a result and, frankly, it's a slow downward spiral towards insolvency for the country.  Their debt to economic output ratio is absurd as is most of Europe.

Now, I do think medical care and schooling should be free for families under a certain tax bracket in the US.  But these two alone are going to cost a tremendous amount of money.  So you would need to delay everything else, implement a plan with these two.. and then see whether you can afford more later.  I'm purposefully not putting environmental programs here because they are actually very economically viable and something the US should 100% do.  I'm talking about those things that are perpetual cost centers.

What you CANNOT do is create an economic environment where we can't compete.  You need to be pragmatic with your solutions.  China and India aren't going away.  China especially will put us in their rearview mirror economically if we raise production costs irresponsibly.

CBarca wrote:If we win the 2 seats in GA (we won't) we still won't see progressive action. That's the slimmest "majority" possible, and progressives aren't even the dominant faction in the Democratic party

Well VP Harris would often be the tie-breaker as President of the Senate, but yes that would lend quite a bit of power to centrist Dems like Manchin and Sinema, even the ones who flipped seats like Hickenlooper and Kelly. Make the policies palatable to them and there's a path forward.

FennecFox7 wrote:Just as a clarification, fiscal conservatives aren’t necessarily against raising taxes when the time
is right. G bush the first did it and Eisenhower kept taxes high if I recall correctly.

What fiscal conservatives are not for McLewis is excessive “bloat” or bureaucracy and a bunch of unnecessary spending and programs. Remember, the current Republican Party is NOT fiscally conservative and that is something that has to be said. Sometimes being fiscally prudent is not something that’s just a republican thing, it isn’t really nowadays. Bill Clinton’s policies are a good example of this

What progressives are on the money about is their stance on social issues @McLewis. No one wants to live in the dark ages anymore. It’s way long past for things like marijuana legalization and saving our planet. Criminal justice reform, not being OK with racism. I can’t compromise on those things. People THINK that stuff like that is not important but it impacts people’s lives a lot more then people think.

Fair enough. There must be balance, of course. Even the progressive social agenda will be expensive though. I think it will be worth it, but expensive. Conservatives will call many of those initiative wasteful spending, even if they are having a positive economic impact, so I think that entire concept is subjective.

sportsczy wrote:Yes you can @McLewis.  That's the biggest failing in the US in general today... this arrogance that what happens or has happened in the rest of the world somehow doesn't apply to us.  Biggest current example:  Coronavirus.  If we had half a brain on us, we'd go to Japan, South Korea, etc. and see what they were doing right... and try to apply those things here in an adapted way of course.

What happened in France and in Europe with failed progressive programs are, at their core, not that different from what would happen in the US or anywhere with a certain population for that matter.  It completely disregards the competitive nature of today's world trade and economics... you can't just think about the short term benefits; you need to understand the implication in terms of being competitive.

I'll give you a very simple example:  Great social programs, very comfortable minimum wage and free education + healthcare.  The French government could not afford the cost of all this with it's existing tax system.  So it taxes both corporations and high income individuals more.  What happened?  The cost of producing goods went way up for companies and they could not compete against their global competitors (most notably Germany and China).  Wealthy people left France.  The government got a larger piece of a smaller pie...  a net very negative in terms of tax income coming in.  The economy has been stagnant for decades as a result and, frankly, it's a slow downward spiral towards insolvency for the country.  Their debt to economic output ratio is absurd as is most of Europe.

Now, I do think medical care and schooling should be free for families under a certain tax bracket in the US.  But these two alone are going to cost a tremendous amount of money.  So you would need to delay everything else, implement a plan with these two.. and then see whether you can afford more later.  I'm purposefully not putting environmental programs here because they are actually very economically viable and something the US should 100% do.  I'm talking about those things that are perpetual cost centers.

What you CANNOT do is create an economic environment where we can't compete.  You need to be pragmatic with your solutions.  China and India aren't going away.  China especially will put us in their rearview mirror economically if we raise production costs irresponsibly.

I don't consider what I said to be arrogant. The US and French economic systems are vastly different. The needs are different. The goals are different. The structure and variables are just....different. It's not arrogance to point that out. I'm just looking at the reality for what it is.

What I do not understand is how regaining the wealthy will improve life for France's poor. We have plenty of wealthy people here in the US and yet poverty remains high. What should I make of that?: Trickle-down economics has failed utterly here in the US. Depending on scraps from the table of the wealthy is not the way to prosperity in neither France nor the US. All it has succeeded in doing is creating a class of people who will protect the wealthy while never truly being among the wealthy. They do not realize that circle is closed purposely because they've been fed a lie that if they work hard enough, they too can be among those elites. It's bullshit.

The Scandinavian countries also require high taxes in order for their citizens to partake in the social and economic programs that provide them with stability. Yet they seem to be able to keep their wealthy just fine. Same with Germany and Canada. The wealthy are not leaving these countries in droves yet their tax rates remain high along with the quality of life. Why is that? Shouldn't what's happening in France be happening in other countries with high tax rates and generous social programs?

What's happening in those countries has been decried as socialism here in the US. It's merely social democracy. We need that in the US, but we'll never have it because our very founding came about due to taxes being too high. We didn't allow an English King to do it so we sure as hell won't allow a centralized government to do it and so there will continue to significant economic disparities. There will continue to be rampant poverty, which breeds rampant crime, which leads to a massive prison industrial complex. Free Market economics got us here. If it was going to work the way it was intended in such a way that crime and poverty would be down to negligible levels, it would've by now. It hasn't so we need to try something else.

Social democracy is a very broad term.  It's a philosophy that is executed very differently in various places.  Germany's version is very different from France's version.  

The US system is a form of social democracy, believe it or not.  By definition, it means "advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy".  Our version is just a version that is more capitalist oriented.

Free market economics got us absolutely here and it's the reason were are the #1 economic power in the world.  Our standard of living is one of the highest in the world.  Let's not forget that for one second.  We're not this awful country as some people absurdly make it seem.

The issues started when Clinton made some bad deregulation mistakes whose consequences we've suffered over the past 15 years.  Also, geography is less of a determinating factor given the advances in tech... so everyone is competing with everyone.  That's not going to change back.  This requires that we make idealogic advances that are pragmatic as well.  You can't just do something because "it feels right" and end up losing ground.  That's my argument.  

Re: Scandinavian countries.  They are tiny.  The comparison doesn't work.  Bigger government has a better chance of working in countries with smaller populations because there is far less opportunity for mismanagement... and there are far fewer nuances to account for.  The US is far too big to centralize like that.

Anyhow, we have differences in philosophy, which I absolutely respect.  I'm neither wrong nor right... and neither are you.  There are good ideas from everywhere.  I just hope we pick the good ones regardless of where they come from.  I really don't care as long as they work.  I am totally game with being proven wrong if the US becomes better.

I can relate to this btw. Worth a read: https://lincolnproject.us

I take your points. I do not agree with many of them, but providing reasoning behind that would just be a re-hash at this point. I want to see less poverty in this country. The current system increases poverty instead so I want to see something else tried. That's all.

As for the Lincoln Project Republicans- I do not trust them. I strongly suspect they voted Biden and then voted GOP in the down-ballot races, creating this mess we're in. Predictable.

McLewis wrote:I take your points. I do not agree with many of them, but providing reasoning behind that would just be a re-hash at this point. I want to see less poverty in this country. The current system increases poverty instead so I want to see something else tried. That's all.

As for the Lincoln Project Republicans- I do not trust them. I strongly suspect they voted Biden and then voted GOP in the down-ballot races, creating this mess we're in. Predictable.

Your views would be completly right if the USA were a completely isolated country. It's not just that the politics of the last two decades made the rich richer and the poor poorer but competitivness all around the world has immensly grown.
For example, we've got an IT specialist from the US and India. Does the difference in the places they're born warrant a 10-20 times more pay for the one in the US? I'd say no, that's what the companies are doing, they outsource those forces in the target countries where they produce. I could go on with that example everywhere.
Who does suffer in that case the most? Unskilled workers or those with little education to show for. The demand is decreasing while the number of those seeking those types of jobs is increasing. I'd also say the trend is irreversible for a good reason: it was unjust in the first place. People in the 1st world countries have been exploiting the 3rd world countries like no tomorrow and are still doing it but the right of the benefits are reserved for the richest people only. Over time, the living standards will normalise all over the world which means the ones in the US will go much lower for the general population.
The solution isn't to create even more low paying jobs so every American should take 2 or 3 to somehow come by with the living costs and the necessities. Countries with a cutting edge heavily invest into the general education, create more high skilled jobs, have got strategies how to compete with the rest of the world over decades.
So the solution for the US wouldn't be more socialism or wealth distribution, it would be a much better general education and access to it which will benefit all of the involved parties long term, that would be socialist in a good way. The other point would be a functioning health care system. All of that needs long term planing during which the US as an industrial country shouldn't lose its cutting edge in technologies and other fields.
You don't get better life or competitiveness by lowering the standards (equality from the POV of the leftist is to lower the standards for everyone), the aim should be to increase the standard for everyone, exactly the other way around.
In that sense, I totally agree with sportsczy. The US left should take care of the basics before going to the extremes of gender studies, political correctness and other similar issues. The basics are high level general education (compared to the rest of the world) and a  functioning health care system (doesn't have to be the best but working). It doesn't look like much but it is HUGE.
I mean Biden has won but it was a pyrrhic victory for the senate. If he can't govern more than a year and Harris takes over republicans can cast a vote of no confidence for a reelection. Democrats then will lose everything they gained during the current election for the simple reason, their extremist agenda doesn't take care of the basics most of the people in a country care for.
That said the far right is the most idiotic movement of them all. I don't see what their aim might be..

The main issue is tax avoidance and tax loop holes, as well as deregulation of Wall Street. Forget more income tax, that’s not a battle you can win. Trump paid 750$ in taxes. If you could even get him to pay even 2% of his wealth that’d be a start.

Our welfare programs are way too complex and broke. I’ve always said this and I’ll say it again. Keep it simple. UBI should replace welfare. Welfare discourages work. That’s the problem. Read into the process, it’s extremely buerocratic and encourages poverty. Instead of free college, incentivize going to community college and/or get a trade like being an electrician and fix the corrupt student loans. Legalize marijuana and encourage kratom usage instead of opioids. Implement value added tax and kill free trade (btw, trump tried to do this and he’s the only president that stood up to China). You have a factory, you make it in the USA. Subsidize small business with low taxes.. etc

Babun wrote:

McLewis wrote:I take your points. I do not agree with many of them, but providing reasoning behind that would just be a re-hash at this point. I want to see less poverty in this country. The current system increases poverty instead so I want to see something else tried. That's all.

As for the Lincoln Project Republicans- I do not trust them. I strongly suspect they voted Biden and then voted GOP in the down-ballot races, creating this mess we're in. Predictable.

Your views would be completly right if the USA were a completely isolated country. It's not just that the politics of the last two decades made the rich richer and the poor poorer but competitivness all around the world has immensly grown.
For example, we've got an IT specialist from the US and India. Does the difference in the places they're born warrant a 10-20 times more pay for the one in the US? I'd say no, that's what the companies are doing, they outsource those forces in the target countries where they produce. I could go on with that example everywhere.
Who does suffer in that case the most? Unskilled workers or those with little education to show for. The demand is decreasing while the number of those seeking those types of jobs is increasing. I'd also say the trend is irreversible for a good reason: it was unjust in the first place. People in the 1st world countries have been exploiting the 3rd world countries like no tomorrow and are still doing it but the right of the benefits are reserved for the richest people only. Over time, the living standards will normalise all over the world which means the ones in the US will go much lower for the general population.
The solution isn't to create even more low paying jobs so every American should take 2 or 3 to somehow come by with the living costs and the necessities. Countries with a cutting edge heavily invest into the general education, create more high skilled jobs, have got strategies how to compete with the rest of the world over decades.
So the solution for the US wouldn't be more socialism or wealth distribution, it would be a much better general education and access to it which will benefit all of the involved parties long term, that would be socialist in a good way. The other point would be a functioning health care system. All of that needs long term planing during which the US as an industrial country shouldn't lose its cutting edge in technologies and other fields.
You don't get better life or competitiveness by lowering the standards (equality from the POV of the leftist is to lower the standards for everyone), the aim should be to increase the standard for everyone, exactly the other way around.
In that sense, I totally agree with sportsczy. The US left should take care of the basics before going to the extremes of gender studies, political correctness and other similar issues. The basics are high level general education (compared to the rest of the world) and a  functioning health care system (doesn't have to be the best but working). It doesn't look like much but it is HUGE.
I mean Biden has won but it was a pyrrhic victory for the senate. If he can't govern more than a year and Harris takes over republicans can cast a vote of no confidence for a reelection. Democrats then will lose everything they gained during the current election for the simple reason, their extremist agenda doesn't take care of the basics most of the people in a country care for.
That said the far right is the most idiotic movement of them all. I don't see what their aim might be..

Babun wrote:Who does suffer in that case the most? Unskilled workers or those with little education to show for. The demand is decreasing while the number of those seeking those types of jobs is increasing. I'd also say the trend is irreversible for a good reason: it was unjust in the first place. People in the 1st world countries have been exploiting the 3rd world countries like no tomorrow and are still doing it but the right of the benefits are reserved for the richest people only. Over time, the living standards will normalise all over the world which means the ones in the US will go much lower for the general population.

They've (Economists) been saying living standards will normalize over here for 30+ years now. Ever since the golden age of free market capitalism: The Reagan Era. Home of the Trickle Down Economics that Republicans absolutely swear works, but very clearly doesn't. That trickle down is supposed to help workers in 3rd world countries, yet as you point out, all it's done is enrich those controlling the how much of a trickle comes out the faucet. If this version of capitalism was going to work for everyone the way it was packaged and marketed, it would've by now.

Babun wrote:The solution isn't to create even more low paying jobs so every American should take 2 or 3 to somehow come by with the living costs and the necessities. Countries with a cutting edge heavily invest into the general education, create more high skilled jobs, have got strategies how to compete with the rest of the world over decades. So the solution for the US wouldn't be more socialism or wealth distribution, it would be a much better general education and access to it which will benefit all of the involved parties long term, that would be socialist in a good way. The other point would be a functioning health care system. All of that needs long term planning during which the US as an industrial country shouldn't lose its cutting edge in technologies and other fields.

Investing into general education requires higher taxes. It's really that simple. If we want better elementary, middle, junior high and high schools, we need more teachers and they must be paid more than what they are paid now, particularly in high poverty areas. Same with healthcare. Medicare-for-all isn't just some slogan. It's a movement to protect people with pre-existing conditions from being left for dead by insurance companies who put profit or life. A strong public healthcare system would offer the competition these companies are so afraid of. Unlike education, these insurance companies have their hooks in both Democrat and Republican politicians at all levels. It's quite insidious.

The Republicans constantly ask the "Where does the money come from? How do we pay for this?" questions, knowing the answers: Taxes. And it has to come from higher local, state and federal taxes. Republicans, the party of low taxes, will never let that happen and there's enough Establishment (Read: Centrist / Moderate) Democrats, at all levels, that are greedy enough to side with them.

Babun wrote:You don't get better life or competitiveness by lowering the standards (equality from the POV of the leftist is to lower the standards for everyone), the aim should be to increase the standard for everyone, exactly the other way around.

No one is saying wealthy kids should be forced to attend public schools. We want more poor kids to have the opportunity to attend better schools, in their own neighborhoods.

No one is saying the wealthy should be forced to live in poorer neighborhoods. We want poor families to have a chance to live in wealthier neighborhoods, without having to move out the hoods they were born in for that to happen.

No one is saying the wealthy should be forced to use healthcare plans that working class use. We want the working class to have access to the same high quality healthcare that the wealth have access to.

No one is talking about equality meaning lower quality for the wealthy and upper class. Progressives are talking about equality in the sense of higher quality for the working poor and lower classes.

There does not need to be a give-take here, that's what Conservatives do not understand.

Babun wrote:In that sense, I totally agree with sportsczy. The US left should take care of the basics before going to the extremes of gender studies, political correctness and other similar issues. The basics are high level general education (compared to the rest of the world) and a  functioning health care system (doesn't have to be the best but working). It doesn't look like much but it is HUGE.

We are not taught financial literacy in school here. We're not taught anything about money management, this is especially true of inner city schools in big cities. Why? Because there is no budget for it. There is literally no money for it. Why? Because that money gets sucked out to the (generally conservative) suburbs, where financial literacy is more often taught. Republicans and conservatives do not want city kids learning how to manage their money because it will shatter the reality that it's not just conservatives out in the sticks that can successfully manage money and will lead to even more power concentrated in cities than already is. What really scares rural Republicans is not just the larger numbers of opposition voters in big cities, but better financially educated voters in big cities. They can guarantee power will always remain in highly populated areas.

Babun wrote:I mean Biden has won but it was a pyrrhic victory for the senate. If he can't govern more than a year and Harris takes over republicans can cast a vote of no confidence for a reelection. Democrats then will lose everything they gained during the current election for the simple reason, their extremist agenda doesn't take care of the basics most of the people in a country care for.

Agreed. Losing House seats and gaining only 2 Senate seats while losing 1 is indeed pyrrhic. Winning the 2 seats in Georgia brings an even split at 50-50 for both parties. Given that VP Harris will be President of the Senate, Democrats will have a slight advantage should they win, but ever so slight. You call the Progressive agenda "extremist". It's truly not. None of it is radical. Republican messaging has made it seem that way and that messaging has been extremely effective. It has people thinking they need Centrism to steer this country back from the right where Trump put it. Centrism is what got us Trump. The US has not had a truly Progressive president since FDR and he fundamentally changed the way this country functions on multiple levels. Many of those programs (such as Medicare and Social Security) are untouchable because the people who rely on them, even though they vote for the people trying to dismantle them, will never allow that to happen. That is what progressive policies can do. We need more of them. Not less.

Financial literacy and money management are not taught in French schools either...  it's a liberal arts education until the last 2 years.  You can then choose a path that targets which university and what program you want to go to.  You can't get into those universities and programs without the proper baccalaureat designation.

There's nothing democratic about it.  If you're a late bloomer, you're screwed because you can't take certain designations unless you have the grades.  If you're really poor, they put you in "professional school", which basically trains you to not go to university and do professional work like carpentry, plumbing, etc.

Many of the North African immigrants in France aren't admitted to secondary schools that prepare them to do well on the baccalaureat.  So they predominantly are forced into the "professional" route in an economy that suffers from chronic high unemployment.

The inner city struggles are no different in the US from anywhere else.

Also, re the "extremist" agenda... the ideals aren't extremist; they're just idealistic.  Regardless, there's plenty of money in the existing budget to make these dreams happen and then some.  There's no reason that some of the obnoxious money we spend on our military can't be moved towards social programs...  We spend 800 billion a year on the military.  China's next at 261 billion.  Then India 71.1 and Russia at 65.1.  Explain to me why our military budget needs to be so bloated compared to everyone else...  and given this fact, how can i trust the government to spend money wisely.