Who do you think will succeed Obama?

Politics & Elections
81

Explain to me what makes Elizabeth Warren a “fringe” candidate? I suspect that the vast majority of Americans agree with Warren and that’s what has the Right so scared. Can you find one wrong gem in her “You didn’t make that” speech or her speech regarding the Bank on Students Act? Probably not, because she’s smarter than you, me, and the whole clown-car of Republican Presidential Candidates. She’s also a very skilled debater, though I suspect you won’t watch, I encourage you to watch the debate between her and Scott Brown.

She murdered him.

I have no doubt that Warren could soundly beat any Republican candidate in a debate; now, whether she wins, is another story. Kerry beat Bush in the debates and still lost. Warren could be a contender in the future, especially if Clinton nominates her as VP or in a cabinet. I really, really, really want her to run and win because it’s about time the Democrats nominate a real liberal rather than centrist candidates who end up being called a “tax and spend liberal” anyway.

  • Honesty
82

No, Palin was a symptom, not a cause. By the conventions, McCain knew he was going to have to take risks to win the election, and threw out the ultimate wild card. Obviously, she didn’t help matters, but the election was already lost when he picked her.

83

Americans would go for a “real liberal”? Can you define “real liberal”?

84

A “real liberal” would not, for example, give Israel $3.2 billion (2012) in free tax-payer money while decreasing the amount given to Detroit (the annual operating budget of $3.1 billion in 2012, btw) year after year. Now, in case you’re unclear of the implication here: Detroit is a City within the United States; Israel is, to my knowledge, not apart of the Union. A “real liberal” would not steal from the poorest of a country to give to the richest of another country. It’s a damn poor bargain.

A “real liberal” would not allow private corporations to seize public property that were purchased, acquired, and/or built by funds from the taxpayer. For example, in Detroit: Hart Plaza, the DIA, and Cobo Hall were constructed, in part, from federal dollars; why should private corporations get a permanent piece of what belongs to the people?

A “real liberal” would reverse the Reagan tax cuts, close all tax loopholes, pay down the debt, provide robust funding scientific & medical research and useful social arts, provide funds for infrastructure, provide low-interest student loans for U.S citizens, start the decriminalization of some drugs, and start GSEs in key industries that the private sector (clearly) cannot handle by themselves (e.g. health care, financial services, and oil and gas) without fucking over taxpayer.

A “real liberal” would be pro-union and believe the source of American ingenuity are the people, not held by some in-the-mirror “job creators” who owe their success to their last name, the color of their skin, and/or inheritance.

A “real liberal” invests in urban and rural areas, providing flexible federal funds for municipalities to use as they see fit; The last “real liberal” was Carter and he did, by far, more for urban planning and renewal than Reagan the Magnificent, Bush the Greater, and Bush the Lesser, combined.

A “real liberal” puts the concerns of people (i.e. human beings) over politics and corporations.

I hope that helps.

  • Honesty
85

Detroit is a cesspool and as a hardcore liberal i rather we burn our money than send it there.

86

IIRC, he actually wanted Lieberman; Palin was Karl Rove’s idea. And the goal was to avoid risk - it just didn’t work out that way. Instead of alienating his base by picking Lieberman, he aliened everyone else with Palin.

87

I think he would have won with Romney. Or at least made it close.

88

Then you have three options:

Option #1: Sell off the city piece-by-piece to private creditors.

Option #2: Expel Detroit from the Union.

Option #3: Provide funds to Detroit to help it get out of its fiscal mess.

The peanut gallery and the clown-car of Republicans have chose Option #1. . Keep in mind, this is precisely what the previous Presidents specifically warned against. Please see George Washington’s or Andrew Jackson’s farewell speech. Finally, if Israel > Detroit, then expel Detroit from the Union and make Israel the 51st State and provide any funds meant to renew Detroit to rich city of Tel Aviv.

  • Honesty
89

Honesty: I was only looking for an answer to the 2nd question, but I guess I got an answer to both!

90

Honesty, you forgot a fourth option: The nation as a whole could ignore Detroit entirely, and leave it up to the locals to decide what to do about the place.

And I don’t think that support for Israel or taxpayer funding for public buildings either one fall on the liberal-conservative spectrum.

91

Give Detroit 1/10 of what we give to Kabul and it would be out of debt. Seriously, the Pentagon has more money in its couch cushions than what Detroit would need. Detroit is a great city and is coming back and the “Detroit is a cesspool” crowd needs to get a little perspective. Who built the bombers and tanks so that we aren’t all speaking German right now?

92

:confused: :confused: Spoken like a supporter of Greed is God, “the poor have only themselves to blame” economics.

93

People in Murmansk and Vladivostok, for the most part.

Nonetheless, I quite take your point.

94

I didn’t say anything about what I support, there. I said that Honesty’s list of options wasn’t actually exhaustive, since there’s another thing that can be done; I didn’t say that we should do it. And taxpayer support for privately-owned public facilities is something that both parties support in some cases and oppose in other cases, with the only difference being which cases are which.

95

Sorry. I guess your post had an (unclear) context which I ignored. Still, I think “public building” means, by default, “publicly-owned public facilities”, not “privately-owned public facilities.”

96

Give Detroit anything and it will still be in debt and all you’ve done is make the corrupt assholes in charge rich.

97

We can support Israel or any other non-US country and territory without paying increasing tribute to them in perpetuity. How can we begin to remove the splinter from Israel’s eye when we ourselves have a plank in our own? When you have a major metropolitan that’s collapsing under a budget of $3.1 billion, your response shouldn’t be to send $3.2 billion in free taxpayer money overseas to a country who’s economic prosperity is several orders of magnitude greater than Detroit. It’s unconscionable and unquestionably unAmerican, not sure where your from though.

[QUOTE=DigitalC]

Give Detroit anything and it will still be in debt and all you’ve done is make the corrupt assholes in charge rich.
[/QUOTE]

Do you have a cite on that? Because if my memory serves correctly, Reagan the Magnificent abolished federal revenue sharing and, at the same time, the State Of Michigan have reduced annual payments to Detroit since the early 90’s. I don’t think “give” and “Detroit” is anyone’s vocabulary.

Once the financial services industry takes over Detroit, it’ll be your broke-ass City that’ll be next on municipal bond chopping block. And don’t think that your broke-ass City isn’t broke or isn’t selling municipal bonds to cope with State and Federal cuts. While U.S cities deal with cuts, we’re sending the supposed savings as free tax money to countries that have a better standard of living than we do. It’s mind-boggling to me how the latter is supposed to be better expenditure of tax dollars than American reinvestment. All the while, the debt increases.

  • Honesty
98

Even if we take a rosy view of the city’s management, a one-time payment to the city of Detroit won’t change anything. The city used to be prosperous because they had a lot of jobs. Most of the jobs the city used to have are gone now, and the decline has been a direct result of that. Even if we pay off their debts now, the jobs are still gone, and so they would just go right back into debt, as quickly as it happened the first time. Any kind of meaningful help to Detroit would have to be a continual flow of money, year after year. And why? Why should we even care about a city at all? We should care about the people, of course, but maybe the best thing we can do for the people of Detroit is just to help them start new lives elsewhere. Or maybe not, but it’s at least an option that must be considered.

99

This is not true.

You are misinformed. The decline of Detroit was slow and tortuous, how “quickly” do you think it occurred?

Chronos, I think your reply here is a testament to the sad times we live. I think you should care about the city because it’s a part of the United States, though I admit, YMMV. For non-US dopers, if you’re wondering why there’s so much antipathy toward Detroit on this forum (and in general), please see the spoiler box below.

Dear non-US and European dopers,

Detroit is the is the only major metropolitan city in the United States whose African-American population is >80%, even exceeding Atlanta the Chocolate City. Therefore, it should be obvious why the majority doesn’t care. Detroit has been stiffed from funds from the State since the early 90’s (including $200 million that Governor Snyder refuses to honor) and reduced/no federal revenue sharing over the last forty years.

The U.S majority - bless their hearts - have been swept into a capitalist fervor; the majority believe that rampant consumerism is the pathway to happiness (i.e. gray thursday, black friday, cyber monday, etc), that economic globalization is a gift to humankind (e.g. “made in china” is awesome!), and governmental restraint on free market excess is the cause of economic turmoil and personal distress (i.e. “regulation is bad”, “tax loopholes are good!”, etc). Thus, the majority is incapable of seeing how having private corporations act as a “lender of last resort” to public municipalities will inevitably lead to privatization and increased costs to the people. For what it’s worth, I blame Fox News as well as reductions in education funding since the late 1970’s.

<smirk>

Sounds like Reconstruction. So, uh, this time, do the Detroit evacuees get 80 acres and an Escalade?

  • Honesty
100

I have never voted for republican for president. If EW ran, I would consider it.