USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[PointOfViewGun]

Even 1% is too much if it's forced and the limit is not 20%.

None of that tells me why having a 20% employee ownership of companies destroy free enterprise. Do you not have an answer to that?

From Sanders' own website:

Share Corporate Wealth with Workers. Under this plan, corporations with at least $100 million in annual revenue, corporations with at least $100 million in balance sheet total, and all publicly traded companies will be required to provide at least 2 percent of stock to their workers every year until the company is at least 20 percent owned by employees. This will be done through the issuing of new shares and the establishment of Democratic Employee Ownership Funds.

You know something that Sanders' own website doesn't?

[sumskilz]

Aexodus, how can you teach them when they won't listen? they keep insisting on the "ideological foundation of democratic socialism".
As they say, In English - The Social Democratic Party in Denmark

Well, I didn't dig any deeper than checking a few of the Wiki articles' sources, but...

Democratic socialism
Not to be confused with Social democracy.

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates for political democracy alongside a socially owned economy,[1] with a particular emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within market socialism, or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy.[2] Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society.[3]...

As a term, democratic socialism has some degree of significant overlaps on practical policy positions with social democracy, although they are often distinguished from each other.[3][27][38] Policies commonly supported by democratic socialists are Keynesian in nature, including significant economic regulation alongside a mixed economy, extensive social insurance schemes, generous public pension programs and a gradual expansion of public ownership over strategic industries.[20] Policies such as free universal healthcare and education are described as "pure Socialism" because they are opposed to "the hedonism of capitalist society".[49] Partly because of this overlap, some political commentators occasionally use the terms interchangeably.[50][51] One difference is that modern social democrats are mainly concerned with practical reforms to capitalism whereas democratic socialists ultimately want to go beyond mere meliorist reforms and advocate systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism.[3][27][38]

And...

Social democracy
Not to be confused with Democratic socialism.

Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and social welfare provisions.[1][2][3] Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, social democracy became associated with the Nordic model and Keynesianism within political circles in the late 20th century.[4] It has also been seen by some political commentators as a synonym for European socialism and as overlapping with democratic socialism.[5][6][7][8]...

Social democracy has some significant overlap on practical policy positions with democratic socialism, although they are usually distinguished from each other.[45][46][47]...

As a term, democratic socialism is also used to refer to certain social democrats prior to the 1970s,[61][62][63][64] when the displacement of Keynesianism by neoliberalism caused many social democratic parties to adopt the Third Way ideology, accepting capitalism as the current status quo and redefining socialism in a way that maintains the liberal capitalist structure intact.[65][66][67][68][69]...

According to both right-wing critics and supporters alike, policies such as universal healthcare and education are "pure Socialism" because they are opposed to "the hedonism of capitalist society".[7][8][73] Partly because of this overlap, some political commentators use the term to refer to European socialism as represented by social democracy, especially in the United States.[74] The difference between the two is that social democrats support practical reforms to capitalism whereas democratic socialists ultimately want to go beyond mere social democratic reforms and advocate systematic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism.[45][46][47]

From what I gather, the Social Democratic Party in Denmark used to be democratic socialists, but are no longer. Anyway, the distinction between the two terms seems useful, but some people do use them interchangeably or blur the lines.

[Love Mountain]

From what I gather, the Social Democratic Party in Denmark used to be democratic socialists, but are no longer. Anyway, the distinction between the two terms seems useful, but some people do use them interchangeably or blur the lines.

From what you can tell, did their shift from Democratic Socialism to Social Democrat result in any significant policy shifts? Not obliging you for a detailed answer, just wondering if you noticed anything.

[Ludicus]

the distinction between the two terms seems useful,but some people do use them interchangeably

I know what you mean, but in concrete terms, the distinction is irrelevant, no one wants to live in a communist regime.Social Democratic Principles - Socialdemokratiet
" Our ideological position is democratic socialism, and the belief in democracy and the struggle for social equity has always driven us forward. The party sees a democratic-socialist Denmark as the end goal of its politics "
--
But in fact, in Europe the names and words are sometimes misleading. For example, our favorite enemy is the Portuguese "Social Democratic" Party ( PSD), a right-wing /ultra-neoliberal party. An analogy can help in this regard: think Democrats vs Republicans.
The Portuguese and the Spanish Socialist Parties are both similar, centre-left parties. The thing is, we agree on the fact that the diabolization of the hard left is counter-productive. For Americans,this sounds very crazy.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Link
A Positive Assessment
Among Costa's greatest accomplishments was establishing the arrangement whereby he would be tolerated by leftist parties, who had been at political war with the Socialists since the end of the dictatorship in 1974 -- parties like the still-orthodox Communist Party, the Greens and the Trotskyist Left Bloc. Costa signed different agreements with each of the three groups, relying on his negotiating skills. Writer and commentator Pereira is convinced that Costa had already prepared a deal with Jerónimo de Sousa, the charismatic head of the Communist Party.
Both sides now have a positive assessment of their non-coalition. "We did everything that we promised," says the Socialist. "It was worthwhile," says the Communist, who suppressed his antipathy of the eurozone Stability Pact and of NATO essentially for the good of the nation. Costa has praised him as a result, calling him trustworthy and a man of his word..."It is better," he said recently in reference to the Left Bloc, "not to destroy a good friendship with a bad marriage"

------------------------
Why am I linking this video?



Everything is connected.From the news-the Luanda Leaks.

State prosecutors in Angola have indicted Isabel dos Santos, Africa's richest women and daughter of Angola's former President. In a press conference, Angola's attorney general; Helder Pitta Groz, said the state was formally charging Santos in the criminal lawsuit with "money laundering, influence peddling, harmful management...forgery of documents, among other economic crimes.

Guess what, Isabel dos Santos hired Trump-tied lobbyists upon learning of the Luanda leaks. - Quartz

Isabel dos Santos, Africa’s scandal-plagued richest woman, hired a US lobbying firm with close ties to the Trump administration last month, a day after learning that a group of journalists, including Quartz, were investigating her empire, records show (pdf).
Angola’s attorney general today charged her with money laundering, and Portuguese prosecutors have said they are investigating information reported in the Luanda Leaks.

The lobbyist, Sonoran Policy Group, is notorious for its work for repressive regimes and has ties to the Trump administration. Since 2017, it has earned $10.5 million from foreign governments, according to OpenSecrets, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. Its founder, Robert Stryk, was an unpaid West Coast adviser for Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign, and has become an exemplar of powerful new lobbying operations that have sprung up since Trump took office.
Sonoran are really well known as a Trump-tied lobbying firm, where they have made a lot of business on their connections to the administration. That alone speaks to one of the allures of that firm [to dos Santos],” said Anna Massoglia, a researcher at OpenSecrets.
Dos Santos’ two contracts with Sonoran, worth $2.2 million over a year, are vaguely worded, but oblige the firm to arrange meetings with “United States and United Kingdom stakeholders” and to “advise and place media” for dos Santos.
Dos Santos’ contracts with Sonoran were first reported by Aaron Schaffer of Al-Monitor.
Quartz was one of 37 international media partners on the Luanda Leaks, which was led by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and stemmed from a leak of more than 700,000 files made to the Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa, a Paris-based advocacy and legal group.

In fact- let's go back in time.
15/03/2019
Trump-connected lobby firms cash in with foreign government is striking.. - Politico

... Sonoran Policy Group, a lobbying firm founded by Trump campaign ...

16/10/2018
Saudi Arabia paid Trump campaign veterans $5.4 million ...for doing virtually nothing

Sonoran Policy Group—headed by a one-time Trump campaign official.

July 06, 2018
Countries Hosting Trump Businesses Have Added Lobbyists at Rapid Pace Since Inauguration

5/10/2017
Report: Trump-tied lobbyists cash in on their connections
-----
Western advisers helped an autocrat's daughter
Key points,

- Western consulting, accounting and law firms played a key role in helping Africa’s wealthiest woman amass and shield a fortune.
- PwC, Boston Consulting Group and other major firms facilitated dos Santos’ efforts to profit off her country’s wealth, apparently ignoring red flags along the way.
- Regulators around the globe have virtually ignored the key role Western professionals play in maintaining an offshore industry that drives money laundering and drains trillions from public coffers.

So, how is that swamp draining going? paraphrasing Hillary's words "-nobody likes Sanders":Lobbyists pan Sanders proposal to end corporate donations

[sumskilz]

From what you can tell, did their shift from Democratic Socialism to Social Democrat result in any significant policy shifts? Not obliging you for a detailed answer, just wondering if you noticed anything.

I noticed they sold 18% of the state owned Danish Oil and Natural Gas company to Goldman Sachs.

[Love Mountain]

I noticed they sold 18% of the state owned Danish Oil and Natural Gas company to Goldman Sachs.

I'd attribute that to common sense and a set of morals, but that's just me.

[Ludicus]

I noticed they sold 18% of the state owned Danish Oil and Natural Gas company to Goldman Sachs.

I hope they don't regret it.If privatization serves the public interest, that's good. Here, in 2014,under a neoliberal government, an irrational privatisation ("sell everything") was at the top of the political agenda. Since 2106, we are carefully/successfully undoing some privatizations, with public transports in first line.

did their shift from Democratic Socialism to Social Democrat result in any significant policy shifts?

In public policy services? Not really.

[Love Mountain]

Really makes the whole discussion over the two terms pointless, as I thought it would be.

[Ludicus]

Really makes the whole discussion over the two terms pointless, as I thought it would be.

That's what I been saying all along.Pure semantics.In the US,every piece of progressive legislation is called "creeping socialism", to instill fear in people. In fact fact I have noticed a significant change in the Nordic countries.In Denmark, the right wing nationalist DPP lost more than half of its votes, and the coalition of left wing parties won a clear majority. Frederiksen is Denmark's youngest-ever prime minister. In Finland, Sanna Marin is the youngest PM in world and the five-party, Social Democrat-led coalition has agreed to stay together and maintain the policy programme it announced in June, focusing on major increases in public spending on welfare and infrastructure, and a pledge to make the country carbon neutral by 2035. Social Democrats also came to power in Sweden. Stefan Löfven, leading a Social Democrat-Green Party coalition is the Swedish prime minister.

[alhoon]

None of that tells me why having a 20% employee ownership of companies destroy free enterprise. Do you not have an answer to that?

Yes, the workers didn't pay for it. You are giving out stocks devaluing the stocks of bona fide shareholders that put their money on the line. Shares that the employees may not want, and you're giving people with little or no financial training shares from people that owned the company before the commie takeover.
I have seen unions at work, it's not good news to have them own an ever-increasing part of the company. Too many corrupt buttholes thinking on how to manipulate their co-employees in the short term.

And then, it comes to why the feck would I invest say 2M$ in a company when it will be devalued by 20% in 10 years because Sanders thinks that the employees deserve it? The employees make their salary whether the company goes well or bad. The employees don't cough up millions of dollars not put them on the line. If the company shuts down in a 3.5% unemployment country, they will simply move to the next company.

Not to mention that 20% is major shareholder. I wouldn't want to have to deal with the union butthole that paints me as the enemy (while I am paying his salary and building up the business he slowly takes over like a creeping vine) as a major shareholder.

And last but not least:

From Sanders' own website:


You know something that Sanders' own website doesn't?

Yes, I do, his own words: https://www.peoplesworld.org/article...of-production/

"...win widespread union support for next year’s Democratic nomination by saying he will propose workers take ownership of individual plants and businesses, removing them from the hands of the bosses and financiers who back them." <=== 100% ownership
+
"One Sanders plan would create “worker wealth funds” which corporations would be required to contribute into, and which would both pay dividends to the workers and buy shares in those firms to give workers ultimate voting control. " <=== 51% ownership


20% is already horrible and destructive and it's just the beginning. The man is dangerous.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes, the workers didn't pay for it. You are giving out stocks devaluing the stocks of bona fide shareholders that put their money on the line. Shares that the employees may not want, and you're giving people with little or no financial training shares from people that owned the company before the commie takeover.
I have seen unions at work, it's not good news to have them own an ever-increasing part of the company. Too many corrupt buttholes thinking on how to manipulate their co-employees in the short term.
And then, it comes to why the feck would I invest say 2M$ in a company when it will be devalued by 20% in 10 years because Sanders thinks that the employees deserve it? The employees make their salary whether the company goes well or bad. The employees don't cough up millions of dollars not put them on the line. If the company shuts down in a 3.5% unemployment country, they will simply move to the next company.
Not to mention that 20% is major shareholder. I wouldn't want to have to deal with the union butthole that paints me as the enemy (while I am paying his salary and building up the business he slowly takes over like a creeping vine) as a major shareholder.

Reissuing of stocks doesn't devalue stock value automatically. It's a moot point to say workers don't have financial knowledge. It's not like they will be individually managing those shares. You're repeating the same false claim that company ownership will be transferred completely to the workers. That is not the case. There is no ever-increasing scheme to transfer 100% of the company to the workers. Why you lie about such simple points is beyond me. You clearly do not value workers even a bit. Such a corrupt mentality explains such foul arguments. If you can't get the basics right I don't know what can be discussed here.

And last but not least:
Yes, I do, his own words: https://www.peoplesworld.org/article...of-production/
"...win widespread union support for next year’s Democratic nomination by saying he will propose workers take ownership of individual plants and businesses, removing them from the hands of the bosses and financiers who back them." <=== 100% ownership
+
"One Sanders plan would create “worker wealth funds” which corporations would be required to contribute into, and which would both pay dividends to the workers and buy shares in those firms to give workers ultimate voting control. " <=== 51% ownership
20% is already horrible and destructive and it's just the beginning. The man is dangerous.

Sigh... Such intellectually dishonest mentality is what's dangerous. You have nothing more than word play at your disposal to continue your slandering. You're falsely building on vague wording of an author's interpretation of a speech by Sanders. On the other side, we have actual wording from Sanders' own team. This isn't a valid argumentation. It's simple slandering. A bad one at that.

None of that still explains why owning 20% of a company by workers of a company destroys free enterprise. This isn't rocket science. You're seemingly grasping at straws with little knowledge on the matter.

[Mithradates]

That's what I been saying all along.Pure semantics.In the US,every piece of progressive legislation is called "creeping socialism", to instill fear in people.

Ah, so when they say that the Democratic Socialists, (unlike the Social democrats) ultimately want to go beyond mere meliorist reforms and advocate systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, (you know, the main difference between the two), they dont really mean it, right?

[Vanoi]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-one-ev...122106844.html

I swear everytime she speaks i like the Democrats a little bit less. If she is the future of the Democratic Party then they are doomed.

[Cope]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-one-ev...122106844.html

I swear everytime she speaks i like the Democrats a little bit less. If she is the future of the Democratic Party then they are doomed.

A Democratic presidential nominee winning in S.C. is basically illegal anyway (assuming Sanders does the unthinkable and picks AOC as his VP).

[conon394]

Sorry she has a point Vanoi

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/27/comp...ome-depot.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...80b_story.html

Once you have a enough money its all too easy to simply make money for nothing (and your chicks for free)

-----

A Democratic presidential nominee winning in S.C. is basically illegal anyway (assuming Sanders does the unthinkable and picks AOC as his VP).

Come on everyone knows the obvious choice for the Sanders is Stacey Abrams if her can to announce before the SC primary he probably owns the nomination.

[Vanoi]

Sorry she has a point Vanoi

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/27/comp...ome-depot.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...80b_story.html

Once you have a enough money its all too easy to simply make money for nothing (and your chicks for free)

-----

Really? These two articles prove AOC right in that every billionaire is a monster exploiting the people and its workers?

You might want to take that to someone dumb enough to believe it. AOC is spouting nothing but class warfare at this point. She has become as polarizing as the Tea Party was in its heyday.

Class warfare doesn't win elections. If the Dems think demonizing simply anyone who is wealthy will get them back into the White House the they are even more out of touch with the voters than they were in 2016.

[conon394]

Really? These two articles prove AOC right in that every billionaire is a monster exploiting the people and its workers?

In a way yes perhaps not actively like say the Koch er brother. But a system where Home Depot can take a tax cut have a stock buy back that benefits its ceo immensely as he sells his options and then also gets new issued by his board is one that has systemic flaws. Is his board doing anything for it payday? I pretty sure Boeing and 737 Max proves the ideal of self corporate board oversight is a myth. Adam Neumann eared his golden parachute how again? I don't think the 20% of We Works workforce cut a month later got such a lavish send off. Or how about the founder of Men's warehouse who got ousted basically because once the company was public the board and other executives were pissed he caped salary at 500,000. American capitalism is in a very self destructive state and given the preponderance of stock owners to just the most wealthy 20% of the country it is not in really caring about the social compact forged out of the New deal and fear of communism any more.

I don't particularly agree with AOC or her particular style but the dems need some vocal voices on the far left to prevent somebody like Biden and his delusion of a world of long dead bi partnership from his youth from getting traction.

Class warfare doesn't win elections

Fake class warfare won for Trump...

[Vanoi]

In a way yes perhaps not actively like say the Koch er brother. But a system where Home Depot can take a tax cut have a stock buy back that benefits its ceo immensely as he sells his options and then also gets new issued by his board is one that has systemic flaws. Is his board doing anything for it payday? I pretty sure Boeing and 737 Max proves the ideal of self corporate board oversight is a myth. Adam Neumann eared his golden parachute how again? I don't think the 20% of We Works workforce cut a month later got such a lavish send off. Or how about the founder of Men's warehouse who got ousted basically because once the company was public the board and other executives were pissed he caped salary at 500,000. American capitalism is in a very self destructive state and given the preponderance of stock owners to just the most wealthy 20% of the country it is not in really caring about the social compact forged out of the New deal and fear of communism any more.

Sounds like you are ranting against the system. That doesn't remotely prove AOC's claim that all billionaires are monsters who exploit their workers.

I don't particularly agree with AOC or her particular style but the dems need some vocal voices on the far left to prevent somebody like Biden and his delusion of a world of long dead bi partnership from his youth from getting traction.

And thats where we disagree. Sorry we already had the Tea Party. We don't need a leftist version of the Tea Party. The far left will do nothing but push the centrist and moderate Democrats to vote Republican. Congrats. You give Trump a second term just because you don't want Biden to win.

Fake class warfare won for Trump...

Was it class warfare that caused the the Democrats in the Midwest? Was it class warfare that granted Hiliary Clinton the nomination?

[conon394]

Was it class warfare that caused the the Democrats in the Midwest? Was it class warfare that granted Hiliary Clinton the nomination?

Ill the rest of you post in a bit. Hillery did win the popular vote but for an antiquated system that has it roots in slavery she would be president. She certainly did not run on class warfare so she lost had she run to the left maybe she would have kept the far left of her own party instead of chasing mythical centrists votes that never existed for her.

[Vanoi]

Ill the rest of you post in a bit. Hillery did win the popular vote but for an antiquated system that has it roots in slavery she would be president. She certainly did not run on class warfare so she lost had she run to the left maybe she would have kept the far left of her own party instead of chasing mythical centrists votes that never existed for her.

Preventing democratic mob rule and fear of uniformed voters (ironic right) were bigger reasons than slavery in its creation. Blame the Founders who had to compromise.

Remember 2012? When the Republicans thought if they just doubled-down on ideology and and kept going to the right that they'd beat Obama? How'd that work out?