It turns out, despite carping from some on the left, pretty similar.

Note that she has a bigger focus on intersectionality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...-bernie-sanders.html

Well, I don't know. He's an Independent and a Socialist pretending to be a Democrat. She's a Democrat. How can they be compared? I can't do it.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
How can they be compared?

They're both kooks uniquely unsuited to being President.

Maybe start there.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
How can they be compared?

They're both kooks uniquely unsuited to being President.

Maybe start there.

Care to elaborate?

In my world, these are the only two candidates anyone is interested in. (Unless they are trumpies)

What's it like in your world?

Bernie is promising some $50T (T as in to trillion) in new benefits without a single idea to who is going to pay. Warren wants Wilbur Ross to take over both Apple and Microsoft.

How can I take either one of them seriously?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Bernie is promising some $50T (T as in to trillion) in new benefits without a single idea to who is going to pay.

This is debatable.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Warren wants Wilbur Ross to take over both Apple and Microsoft.

This doesn't make sense to me.

Putting aside Steve's comment, which doesn't bear discussion because we are on such completely different wavelengths about the issues (apparently), the comparison of positions suggests that they are quite close.

Therefore, anyone who claims that they are very different either (1) is not looking at the similarities on individual issues, or (2) is looking at style, temperament, and gender, and placing weight on those, or (3) is giving Bernie some credit for a lifetime achievement award, or (4) some combination of all of those things.

Alternatively, when Daniel says:

quote:

He's an Independent and a Socialist pretending to be a Democrat. She's a Democrat. How can they be compared?

That seems to me to be a focus on labels, as opposed to an analysis of the substance of their positions.

Maybe the labels would suggest that, on other issues on which positions are not yet taken, they'd be different. But the evidence to date suggests otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Bernie is promising some $50T (T as in to trillion) in new benefits without a single idea to who is going to pay.

This is debatable.

I'd love to see a breakdown of how that $50T is calculated, from a reputable source.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Warren wants Wilbur Ross to take over both Apple and Microsoft.

Not so.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Bernie is promising some $50T (T as in to trillion) in new benefits without a single idea to who is going to pay.

This is debatable.

I'd love to see a breakdown of how that $50T is calculated, from a reputable source.

Maybe we can do this in pieces; I have no idea if the $50T figure is accurate

LA Times says Bernie's climate change deal has a price tag of $16T.

https://www.latimes.com/politi...n-democratic-primary

edit1: If I'm reading this Politico piece right, Bernie's college plan (free college and loan forgiveness) would be $2.2T. He proposes to pay for it with a Wall Street tax.

https://www.politico.com/story...iveness-plan-1296863

Bernie is an old, white, man who's been in politics forever

Elizabeth is an old, white, woman who came onto the political scene in 2012. (That 2012 date is from a VERY quick scan of info, and I could be wrong about it.)

IF those two are my only choices (cause no way in hell am I voting for Trump), then I have to go with Warren because:

a) she's younger (although not by much, only 8 or 9 years)

b) she hasn't been in politics long enough to have completely forfeited her humanity and sold her soul (no doubt down payments have been made though)

c) she's a woman, and men have so totally f*cked up politics that we need to vote them all out

JMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by Dan:
Bernie is an old, white, man who's been in politics forever

Elizabeth is an old, white, woman who came onto the political scene in 2012. (That 2012 date is from a VERY quick scan of info, and I could be wrong about it.)

IF those two are my only choices (cause no way in hell am I voting for Trump), then I have to go with Warren because:

a) she's younger (although not by much, only 8 or 9 years)

b) she hasn't been in politics long enough to have completely forfeited her humanity and sold her soul (no doubt down payments have been made though)

c) she's a woman, and men have so totally f*cked up politics that we need to vote them all out

JMHO.

The candidates who seem best-equipped to go mano-a-mano with Trump are Warren and Harris.

The candidate best-equipped to make Trump look and sound like a hysterical moron is Buttigieg, whose temperament seems to me very Obama-like. In fact, he's like Obama in a lot of ways ... intellectual, compassionate, off-the-charts smart, composed.

I'm becoming convinced that Biden can't exploit Trump's greatest weakness ... that he's losing it. I think prolonged exposure to a national audience will lead the voting public to conclude that Biden is not up to the job.

I don't think anyone else has gotten enough traction, or provides enough differentiation, to be worth talking about as a candidate.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Dan:
Bernie is an old, white, man who's been in politics forever

Elizabeth is an old, white, woman who came onto the political scene in 2012. (That 2012 date is from a VERY quick scan of info, and I could be wrong about it.)

IF those two are my only choices (cause no way in hell am I voting for Trump), then I have to go with Warren because:

a) she's younger (although not by much, only 8 or 9 years)

b) she hasn't been in politics long enough to have completely forfeited her humanity and sold her soul (no doubt down payments have been made though)

c) she's a woman, and men have so totally f*cked up politics that we need to vote them all out

JMHO.

The candidates who seem best-equipped to go mano-a-mano with Trump are Warren and Harris.

The candidate best-equipped to make Trump look and sound like a hysterical moron is Buttigieg, whose temperament seems to me very Obama-like. In fact, he's like Obama in a lot of ways ... intellectual, compassionate, off-the-charts smart, composed.

I'm becoming convinced that Biden can't exploit Trump's greatest weakness ... that he's losing it. I think prolonged exposure to a national audience will lead the voting public to conclude that Biden is not up to the job.

I don't think anyone else has gotten enough traction, or provides enough differentiation, to be worth talking about as a candidate.

Agree. But bear in mind what they say about wrestling with pigs. We don't want mano a mano with Trump. It isnt going to help. We want the Buttigieg method.

quote:

Originally posted by Axtremus:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Warren wants Wilbur Ross to take over both Apple and Microsoft.

Not so.

I didn't think so.