2020 US Presidential Election Discussion

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
51
Location
Orlando, Florida
#1
With the United States presidential election nearing closer, candidates have started announcing their campaigns. With lots of names popping up, it can be confusing to keep track of who's who, where people stand, and what goals they have for presidency. The aim of this thread is to create a space where we can discuss candidates, hopes for the election, and issues we'd like to see addressed. Let's make this a learning space.

Here are some of the notable candidates for presidency, by political party (keep in mind that primaries have not occurred):

Republican Party
Donald Trump (incumbent)
Mark Sanford (FL)
Joe Walsh (IL)

Bill Weld (MA)

Democratic Party
Michael Bennet (CO)
Joe Biden (DE)
Cory Booker (NJ)
Steve Bullock (MO)
Pete Buttigieg (IN)
Julian Castro (TX)
John Delaney (MD)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI)
Kamala Harris (CA)
Amy Klobuchar (MN)
Wayne Messam (FL)
Bernie Sanders (VT)
Joe Sestak (PN)
Tom Steyer (CA)
Elizabeth Warren (MA)
Marianne Williamson (TX)

Andrew Yang (NY)

Green Party
Howie Hawkins (CA)
Dario Hunter (OH)


Libertarian Party
Max Abramson (WA)
Ken Armstrong (HI)
Dan Behrman (CA)
Souraya Fass (FL)
Jo Jourgensen (SC)
Adam Kokesh (AZ)
John McAfee (TN)
Kim Ruff (AZ)
Vermin Supreme (MA)
Arvin Vohra (MD)


Independent
Mark Charles (DC)

I will try and keep this thread updated as more people announce their campaigns or as people withdraw.
So what are your thoughts, everyone? Any people you are very interested in? Any names you are dreading to see? Any issues that you hope are explored?
 
Last edited:

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
51
Location
Orlando, Florida
#5
I'm behind Bernie and Warren the most, but I am expecting Kamala Harris to end up winning the nomination. Still, I just hope whoever does become the candidate can do a really good campaign and make sure that Trump doesn't get a second term.
Is there a particular reason you think Harris will end up winning the nomination? I haven't looked into her too much, but the more I look the more it seems like people are saying Clinton's previous donors are going for her. She seems to be the HRC of this batch of candidates? But Bernie does have some serious support and a fanbase that I'm sure will remain loyal to him. The others will have to really bring it on if they want a chance I think.

You're actually the first person I've heard who supports him. Since Trump is incumbent, running against him is a very big task that not many people are up for doing. Do you think he has any hope of success?

I was behind Bernie last time, and I feel no shame in backing him again.
Looks like you're one of many. His support hasn't seemed to have wavered since last time, let's see if he keeps it up.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Powerslave
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
5,247
#6
You're actually the first person I've heard who supports him. Since Trump is incumbent, running against him is a very big task that not many people are up for doing. Do you think he has any hope of success?
The country is so divided on what's important that it's almost impossible to predict this far out but yeah he might have a shot.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
665
Location
a little town on the edge of nowhere
3DS FC
4227-3446-5848
#8
I fully expect the bots and paid posters to come out in force again, encouraging people to vote third party or not to vote at all. Crazy how these people seem to vanish after each election, right?

Centrism is a poison. There's no "middle ground" in reality on most topics.
In my experience, centrists tend to vote split ticket depending on the candidates. Most people I've talked to who go third party or voteless are either uninterested in politics, or are philosophical libertarians (not necessarily Libertarian Party supporters).

Personally, I'm not really sure whether I'll vote or not. It just depends on whether I have anything better to do with my time when the ballot comes around.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
1,622
Location
Persona kids, Persona squids.
#10
I will try and keep this thread updated as more people announce their campaigns or as people withdraw.
I'd just cross-check with the NYT list every so often to keep the list updated.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html

For instance, Gillibrand hasn't technically announced she's running yet persay, but she's been hiring campaign staff like crazy for the past month.

So what are your thoughts, everyone? Any people you are very interested in? Any names you are dreading to see? Any issues that you hope are explored?
The DNC has the potential off turning into a media circus like the GOP did last election when they had 15ish candidates. The good news is none of the ones running yet are dementia reality hosts doing it for the ratings. The bad news is Sanders is basically just a step away from that, with the caveat that so many candidates mean he's probably going to get torn to shreds during the debates this time around without Clinton explicitly handling him with kids gloves.

Michael Bloomberg is also a possible runner who is putting quite a lot of time and money in entertaining the idea, but he's been entertaining the idea for nearly as long as I've been alive so we'll see if 2020 is the election he finally puts his name in.

That Biden hasn't said one way or another if he's running is sort of odd, but if he does it'll completely change the landscape of the primary.

I fully expect the bots and paid posters to come out in force again, encouraging people to vote third party or not to vote at all. Crazy how these people seem to vanish after each election, right?

Centrism is a poison. There's no "middle ground" in reality on most topics.
Centrism isn't related to middle ground within topics, it's related to middle ground between party agendas. It's the opposite of tribalism, hence it's constant condemnation from modern day political enthusiasts.

There's a reason over 40% of the country are Independents.
 
Last edited:

Ura

Advance Wars is the new Mother 3
Joined
Feb 4, 2014
Messages
12,062
Switch FC
SW-2772-0149-6703
#11
Centrism isn't related to middle ground within topics, it's related to middle ground between party agendas. It's the opposite of tribalism, hence it's constant condemnation from modern day political enthusiasts.

There's a reason over 40% of the country are Independents.
Exactly. I would much rather be a centrist than be on the extreme end of either spectrum. Because that's what's wrong with the world today.
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
51
Location
Orlando, Florida
#12
I'd just cross-check with the NYT list every so often to keep the list updated.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html

For instance, Gillibrand hasn't technically announced she's running yet persay, but she's been hiring campaign staff like crazy for the past month.
Thank you for this list. I'm going to use it in keeping updated. Before I was scrambling to see who had run without knowing where there was an accurate and up-to-date list.
That said, it looks like Gillibrand is running, according to the list you linked and her campaign site and announcements made in January. Or am I mistaken?


The DNC has the potential off turning into a media circus like the GOP did last election when they had 15ish candidates. The good news is none of the ones running yet are dementia reality hosts doing it for the ratings. The bad news is Sanders is basically just a step away from that, with the caveat that so many candidates mean he's probably going to get torn to shreds during the debates this time around without Clinton explicitly handling him with kids gloves.
It looks like there are many candidates this time around. Looking a bit into some of the candidate interviews and whatnot I heard from Andrew Yang that this time around the democrats are going to be doing integrated debates (all candidates have equal chances of debating with each other) over the span of two days, where each day will host randomly selected candidates rather than selecting based on other factors. This is interesting to me, as it appears like it'll help lesser known candidates get into the spotlight to debate the big names, although I'm wondering if it'll really be randomly selected.

If there a reason why you think Bernie is a step away from what you said? From what I saw he was the most recent one to announce his campaign, so it's only been a few days. I haven't been hearing too much about him aside from the fact that he is running and that people are wondering if he should.


Michael Bloomberg is also a possible runner who is putting quite a lot of time and money in entertaining the idea, but he's been entertaining the idea for nearly as long as I've been alive so we'll see if 2020 is the election he finally puts his name in.

That Biden hasn't said one way or another if he's running is sort of odd, but if he does it'll completely change the landscape of the primary.
I've been seeing a lot of people calling for Biden to run, which is interesting. I didn't think he had that much support but at the moment it seems like he is one of the most requested people to run, even more than Sanders in some sites I've looked at.


Centrism isn't related to middle ground within topics, it's related to middle ground between party agendas. It's the opposite of tribalism, hence it's constant condemnation from modern day political enthusiasts.
There's a reason over 40% of the country are Independents.
Exactly. I would much rather be a centrist than be on the extreme end of either spectrum. Because that's what's wrong with the world today.
I'll reply to both of these at once since they're related.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't centrism more about trying to be a "compromise" between parties/proposals?
Forgive me for my wikipedia source but it states that it is "a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy, while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society strongly to either the left or the right "
Whereas an independent would be "a voter who does not align themselves with a political party. An independent is variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates on issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship; a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party; a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election; or a voter who self-describes as an independent. "

Because centrists are moderate compared to one leaning or another, they may be more affiliated with independents due to not identifying with one party completely, but I do not think that they are one in the same.

My aunt is someone who I'd say is a centrist. When I asked her about what she liked to see in the future, she said she'd "like some stability and for things not to change too much." Because of this, she wasn't in favor of Trump and Bernie last election because she saw them as two extremes. She valued more of the middle ground. She is an independent.

My big sister, however, is someone who I'd say is independent but is definitely not centrist. She favors radical changes, but the changes she favors come from both the left and the right. For example, she strongly believes that guns should not be regulated whatsoever, which is a position that the right tends to have. At the same time, she supports completely tuition-free college, which is a position that the left tends to have. When she votes, she tends to take the issue that is most important to her (usually a radical one) and vote for who is most likely to carry out that issue, whether it is a republican or a democrat (or third party). She is not affiliated with a political party.

In general I think independence is a good thing to practice, rather than complete party allegiance. It allows you to focus on the issues that are important to you and analyze political groups with a critical lens.

However, I'd say centrism simply for the sake of centrism could be a dangerous thing. This is because it would be forming your opinions based on the radical opinions of others rather than analyzing things and deciding for yourself. For example, if the left proposes one thing and the right proposes another, being centrist for the sake of being centrist would be to say "I think the middle of these proposals would be best." regardless of what the proposals are. In that way, it can become its own tribe. And sometimes, an extreme problem might require an extreme solution. We've seen this historically in the US and it's not something that should be dismissed.

That said, it's a different thing if you analyze the issues yourself and come to a centrist conclusion. That wouldn't be centrism simply for its sake but rather a thought out position, which is something that I think all people, regardless of where they align, should practice.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
1,622
Location
Persona kids, Persona squids.
#13
Apologies for the spaghetti post.

That said, it looks like Gillibrand is running, according to the list you linked and her campaign site and announcements made in January. Or am I mistaken?
In January she announced that she was creating a presidential exploratory committee, which isn't the same thing as officially announcing she's running in the Democratic Party primary. That's why I added so many "technically"s and the sort to that sentence, cause she's running, everyone knows shes running, she just hasn't filled out the final few pieces of paperwork yet.

Looking a bit into some of the candidate interviews and whatnot I heard from Andrew Yang that this time around the democrats are going to be doing integrated debates (all candidates have equal chances of debating with each other) over the span of two days, where each day will host randomly selected candidates rather than selecting based on other factors. This is interesting to me, as it appears like it'll help lesser known candidates get into the spotlight to debate the big names, although I'm wondering if it'll really be randomly selected.
Two things here

1) You will always have something better to be doing with your time than listening to Andrew Yang.

2) Here's a 538 article on the DNC's debate rules and schedule for this cycle.

If there a reason why you think Bernie is a step away from what you said? From what I saw he was the most recent one to announce his campaign, so it's only been a few days. I haven't been hearing too much about him aside from the fact that he is running and that people are wondering if he should.
Much like last time, his entire campaign is a vanity project, he has no good ideas outside of buzzwords, and all of his supporter are people who apparently haven't ever thought of looking at his voting history or asking actual economists about his policies. Having a foreign policy that's somehow even worse than Trump's is already starting to hurt him due to the current military crisis in Venezuela, as well.

On top of all that, Elizabeth Warren is running. I wouldn't vote for either of them, but it's going to be popcorn-worthy seeing Bernie Bros try to argue for Sanders over Warren and visa-versa when the debates roll in.

I'll reply to both of these at once since they're related.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't centrism more about trying to be a "compromise" between parties/proposals?
Forgive me for my wikipedia source but it states that it is "a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy, while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society strongly to either the left or the right "
Whereas an independent would be "a voter who does not align themselves with a political party. An independent is variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates on issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship; a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party; a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election; or a voter who self-describes as an independent. "

Because centrists are moderate compared to one leaning or another, they may be more affiliated with independents due to not identifying with one party completely, but I do not think that they are one in the same.
If that's the definition you want to go with, sure I'd say that works. By definition with what we call Left and Right, if you aren't actually part of a group then there are few places to fall than in the center. Likewise, Sander's political career as a socialist has always been as an Independent who caucuses with the DNC so they don't try to challenge his seat; an Independent who effectively claims to be too radical to be apart of the liberal party so while an exception that proves the rule, you could use that second definition if you wanted.

Regardless, centrists, independents, and moderates are all words basically used interchangeably.

Both your Aunt and sister could easily be called centrists. Your Aunt, like many in the middle, feels alienated by the increased prominency of the radical ideological fringes on dictating platform between her two choices. This has always been a problem in American politics, and (Bill) Clinton is basically the example of a centrist politician, having previously been in charge of the DNC committee to move the party back to the center after Carter nearly nuked them into oblivion.

Your sister, like many in the middle, feels very strongly about two issues dear to her where each of them puts her squarely in the other camp.

We've seen this historically in the US and it's not something that should be dismissed.
Can you give historical examples in the US of this strawman, then? Like, I see what you're getting at but I have legitimately never heard of this type of person except as a caricature that Twu Believers like trowing around to claim that the REAL problem in American politics are all of those "Radical Moderates", those villainous scumbags.
 
Last edited:

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
51
Location
Orlando, Florida
#14
Apologies for the spaghetti post.



In January she announced that she was creating a presidential exploratory committee, which isn't the same thing as officially announcing she's running in the Democratic Party primary. That's why I added so many "technically"s and the sort to that sentence, cause she's running, everyone knows shes running, she just hasn't filled out the final few pieces of paperwork yet.
Ah ok, thanks for clarifying. In this case I will leave her up as one of the candidates since all signs are pointing to "yes" and if she declares that she is withdrawing, I'll remove her.


Two things here

1) You will always have something better to be doing with your time than listening to Andrew Yang.

2) Here's a 538 article on the DNC's debate rules and schedule for this cycle.
Well, considering he is running seriously and will be able to participate in the debates I think he's worth at least looking over even if his chances are slim, no? I try to examine all candidates with fairness in the beginning.
This article raises some good points. I think there are definitely pros and cons to many people running and debating. Pros are a diversity of thought and stances on issues which will mean that more people will as a result be represented by at least one candidate. But... judging from last year's circus, it could also be chaotic to the point of getting people disinterested and frustrated with the commotion. I don't think there's a "Trump" among the democrats this time around in terms of his effect on the media though, so in that way I suppose it'll be different for them.
So I guess the question is "at what point should things be closed off?"


Much like last time, his entire campaign is a vanity project, he has no good ideas outside of buzzwords, and all of his supporter are people who apparently haven't ever thought of looking at his voting history or asking actual economists about his policies. Having a foreign policy that's somehow even worse than Trump's is already starting to hurt him due to the current military crisis in Venezuela, as well.

On top of all that, Elizabeth Warren is running. I wouldn't vote for either of them, but it's going to be popcorn-worthy seeing Bernie Bros try to argue for Sanders over Warren and visa-versa when the debates roll in.
Hmm, I'll have to look into it. From what I've seen of him so far, he is speaking in broad strokes, much like many of the other candidates at this point tbh. He does bring up problems that the people in the US are concerned about and in a general way speaks about what he would like to do. I suppose at this point it'll be a matter of showcasing what his policies are- his "hows" so to speak.
So far this is something I appreciated from Klobuchar and Yang because their campaign sites actually list things they wish to address and how. They also cover a variety of issues while pointing out their key issues they're putting at the forefront (Which Gabbard has done too, but I see a little less of her "hows" at the moment.) Contrasted with someone like Castro, who's big press seems so... empty in terms of what he actually wants to push and is instead more like "vote for me, I'm good!" But again, I have to look deeper. These are initial impressions.
Back to Bernie- I've looked into his voting record a bit and didn't find anything too contradictory, although there were some things I took issue with. I'll be looking closer as we get closer to the primaries.
Is there a reason you dislike his foreign policy? Initial impression for me seems like he leans dove.


If that's the definition you want to go with, sure I'd say that works. By definition with what we call Left and Right, if you aren't actually part of a group then there are few places to fall than in the center. Likewise, Sander's political career as a socialist has always been as an Independent who caucuses with the DNC so they don't try to challenge his seat; an Independent who effectively claims to be too radical to be apart of the liberal party so while an exception that proves the rule, you could use that second definition if you wanted.

Regardless, centrists, independents, and moderates are all words basically used interchangeably.

Both your Aunt and sister could easily be called centrists. Your Aunt, like many in the middle, feels alienated by the increased prominency of the radical ideological fringes on dictating platform between her two choices. This has always been a problem in American politics, and (Bill) Clinton is basically the example of a centrist politician, having previously been in charge of the DNC committee to move the party back to the center after Carter nearly nuked them into oblivion.

Your sister, like many in the middle, feels very strongly about two issues dear to her where each of them puts her squarely in the other camp.
Haha, I feel like my sister would get very angry if anyone called her a centrist, but I see the point you're making. I guess my frustrations with the equalization of centrism and independence is that I've far too often seen people act superior in their centrism to the point of it becoming tribal. It's an almost... dismissal of the ideals that people formulate on the left, right, and other(?) rather than engaging with them. Again, I don't have a problem with someone analyzing and reaching a centrist conclusion on an issue - its "Centrism for its own sake." if that makes sense. I guess it could also be compared to frustrations of party loyalty too rather than self examination and critical thought on each issue. I think "I'll do whatever Democrats/Republicans/Other(s) say because I am one" is also just as bad. Not sure if I'm making my point effectively here but I can elaborate if I'm not.


Can you give historical examples in the US of this strawman, then? Like, I see what you're getting at but I have legitimately never heard of this type of person except as a caricature that Twu Believers like trowing around to claim that the REAL problem in American politics are all of those "Radical Moderates", those villainous scumbags.
Sure. Abolition of slavery, in its historical context, is something that was so radical that it divided the nation like never before. The institution of slavery was HUGE, and abolition was an extreme position at the time. Something in the middle of the positions of abolition and continuing slavery would have been something along the lines of the "3/5ths compromise" but that's not what happened. It was an extreme solution to an extreme problem.

I won't say that every problem requires an extreme solution, but I think it's incorrect to say that extreme solutions have never been needed. Just as "moderacy is never needed" would be false to say as well.

Obviously today is very different from that time, but what we're seeing is that we have very increasingly polar opinions on how a variety of things should be handled. I think it's best to engage with people and ask why they believe that and truly try to understand them. I think extremism tends to rise in times where people feel something isn't right, so let's try and get to the source of why people feel that way and find the best solution, whatever it may be (even people we disagree with). At least, that's what I believe.

To illustrate what I mean, here's an example:
Some on the left believe that affirmative action should be necessary and there should be incentives for organizations to increase diversity.
Some on the right believe that affirmative action shouldn't be a thing and that it should be based on merit alone.

The left would argue that the current application of hiring is discriminatory to diverse groups of people even if they have qualifications.
The right would argue that implementing affirmative makes hiring process discriminatory to people who may not be part of a diverse group but have qualifications.

By trying to understand both positions, we get to the bottom of the issue - fear of people who deserve something not being able to get what they deserve. This is present on both sides.

At that point, we can re-examine our own held positions and see if what we are advocating for is truly what we think is best or if perhaps the other side has a point. Looking at stats and proposals is also best practice to do here too, since that will dictate effectiveness of a lot of things.

So in this example, even if the sides dont see eye to eye on affirmative action, they can still understand each other and get together to think "ok, what are other things we can do to make recruitment processes more fair?"
 
Last edited:

Lore

Infinite Gravity
Moderator
Premium
GRimer
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
14,070
Location
Formerly 'Werekill' and 'NeoTermina'
#15
Centrism isn't related to middle ground within topics, it's related to middle ground between party agendas. It's the opposite of tribalism, hence it's constant condemnation from modern day political enthusiasts.

There's a reason over 40% of the country are Independents.
Exactly. I would much rather be a centrist than be on the extreme end of either spectrum. Because that's what's wrong with the world today.

There's no middle ground between "abortion is murder" and "abortion is ok", minus debate about late-term abortion outside of medical necessity.

There's no middle ground between "toss illegal immigrant kids in camps" and "we need to strengthen our border security while improving legal immigration." I'm ignoring the Wall debate as the political stunt that it is.

There's no middle ground between "LGBT people don't deserve anti-discrimination policies" and "LGBT people deserve anti-discrimination policies."

There's no middle ground between "climate change is fake" and "climate change is real."

There's no middle ground between "campaign finance is fine" and "campaign finance needs reforms."

There's no middle ground between "Russia did nothing to us" and "Russia directly hacked and influenced our election, and we need to strengthen our security." Especially when every intelligence agency supports the latter.

There's no middle ground between "we need tariffs" and "tariffs have been repeatedly proven to not work, even under Bush."

There's no middle ground between "marijuana should be illegal" and "marijuana should be legal."

There's no middle ground between "kneeling during the anthem should be illegal" and "kneeling is a valid and non-violent protest."

There's no middle ground between "racism is a thing of the past" and "racism is a very real, very dangerous modern issue."

There's no middle ground between "more tax cuts" and "raise taxes."

There's no middle ground between "minimum wage is currently a livable wage" and "minimum wage is far from a livable wage."

There's no middle ground between "this country is a Christian nation" and "this country is for all people," and I say that as a Christian myself.

There's no middle ground between "corporations deserve to avoid all taxes" and "everyone needs to pay their fair share."



We could split hairs over these points all day, but the fact remains: if you say you're in the middle ground, you're sticking your head in the sand. Neither party is perfect, but we live in a country where seemingly common-sense issues have become polarizing divides. Until this madness ends, proclaiming you are better than both sides is actively harmful.

If you say "the madness won't end until either a third party candidate is in or enough people don't vote," I have a bridge to sell you.
 

Ura

Advance Wars is the new Mother 3
Joined
Feb 4, 2014
Messages
12,062
Switch FC
SW-2772-0149-6703
#16
I'll reply to both of these at once since they're related.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't centrism more about trying to be a "compromise" between parties/proposals?
Forgive me for my wikipedia source but it states that it is "a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy, while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society strongly to either the left or the right "
Whereas an independent would be "a voter who does not align themselves with a political party. An independent is variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates on issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship; a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party; a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election; or a voter who self-describes as an independent. "

Because centrists are moderate compared to one leaning or another, they may be more affiliated with independents due to not identifying with one party completely, but I do not think that they are one in the same.

My aunt is someone who I'd say is a centrist. When I asked her about what she liked to see in the future, she said she'd "like some stability and for things not to change too much." Because of this, she wasn't in favor of Trump and Bernie last election because she saw them as two extremes. She valued more of the middle ground. She is an independent.

My big sister, however, is someone who I'd say is independent but is definitely not centrist. She favors radical changes, but the changes she favors come from both the left and the right. For example, she strongly believes that guns should not be regulated whatsoever, which is a position that the right tends to have. At the same time, she supports completely tuition-free college, which is a position that the left tends to have. When she votes, she tends to take the issue that is most important to her (usually a radical one) and vote for who is most likely to carry out that issue, whether it is a republican or a democrat (or third party). She is not affiliated with a political party.

In general I think independence is a good thing to practice, rather than complete party allegiance. It allows you to focus on the issues that are important to you and analyze political groups with a critical lens.

However, I'd say centrism simply for the sake of centrism could be a dangerous thing. This is because it would be forming your opinions based on the radical opinions of others rather than analyzing things and deciding for yourself. For example, if the left proposes one thing and the right proposes another, being centrist for the sake of being centrist would be to say "I think the middle of these proposals would be best." regardless of what the proposals are. In that way, it can become its own tribe. And sometimes, an extreme problem might require an extreme solution. We've seen this historically in the US and it's not something that should be dismissed.

That said, it's a different thing if you analyze the issues yourself and come to a centrist conclusion. That wouldn't be centrism simply for its sake but rather a thought out position, which is something that I think all people, regardless of where they align, should practice.
Well definitions on what it means to be a "centrist" may differ depending on who you ask. I would consider myself more liberal-minded on most issues but I still think of myself as someone closer to the center of the spectrum. Because I don't look at everything as an "either/or" like a lot of people do. I can feel a certain way about a number of issues but think differently on something else. i.e. My views on things like universal health care, immigration, religion, climate change, among others are liberal-orientated but I tend to have a conservative viewpoint on things like criminal justice. I suppose I just don't like the narrative of "us VS them" being thrown a lot. That's not to say there's a lot of horrible people out there of course. Just that the focus being on ideologies farther on both spectrums doesn't sit right with me.

I will agree that being neutral for the sake of being neutral is a very stupid thing for people to do. Hence why people who don't vote are very ignorant.
There's no middle ground between "abortion is murder" and "abortion is ok", minus debate about late-term abortion outside of medical necessity.

There's no middle ground between "toss illegal immigrant kids in camps" and "we need to strengthen our border security while improving legal immigration." I'm ignoring the Wall debate as the political stunt that it is.

There's no middle ground between "LGBT people don't deserve anti-discrimination policies" and "LGBT people deserve anti-discrimination policies."

There's no middle ground between "climate change is fake" and "climate change is real."

There's no middle ground between "campaign finance is fine" and "campaign finance needs reforms."

There's no middle ground between "Russia did nothing to us" and "Russia directly hacked and influenced our election, and we need to strengthen our security." Especially when every intelligence agency supports the latter.

There's no middle ground between "we need tariffs" and "tariffs have been repeatedly proven to not work, even under Bush."

There's no middle ground between "marijuana should be illegal" and "marijuana should be legal."

There's no middle ground between "kneeling during the anthem should be illegal" and "kneeling is a valid and non-violent protest."

There's no middle ground between "racism is a thing of the past" and "racism is a very real, very dangerous modern issue."

There's no middle ground between "more tax cuts" and "raise taxes."

There's no middle ground between "minimum wage is currently a livable wage" and "minimum wage is far from a livable wage."

There's no middle ground between "this country is a Christian nation" and "this country is for all people," and I say that as a Christian myself.

There's no middle ground between "corporations deserve to avoid all taxes" and "everyone needs to pay their fair share."



We could split hairs over these points all day, but the fact remains: if you say you're in the middle ground, you're sticking your head in the sand. Neither party is perfect, but we live in a country where seemingly common-sense issues have become polarizing divides. Until this madness ends, proclaiming you are better than both sides is actively harmful.

If you say "the madness won't end until either a third party candidate is in or enough people don't vote," I have a bridge to sell you.
True true. But as I said, there is no "either/or" all the time. I mean yeah sure someone can have that mentality but it's not universal as I mentioned above. How I feel about a certain issue can be different on another, it's not black and white. And likewise, I might feel strongly about some issues over others depending on what they mean to me. Not that they don't matter of course, some just have higher importance based on who you ask.

As I mentioned above, being neutral for the sake of neutral is dumb. I'm not saying people should be disengaged from politics of course. Just that the emphasis on extreme ends on both sides is what ruins things IMO. Well that among the whole toxic culture on the internet. Buzzwords thrown around like "SJW" and "NPC" but that's for another day I guess.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
1,622
Location
Persona kids, Persona squids.
#17
Haha, I feel like my sister would get very angry if anyone called her a centrist, but I see the point you're making.
I mean, I'm perfectly fine calling myself centrist or moderate or whatever if I'm really before forced to do so, and I'm just like your sister in how you described it. I can't be left because I have things I believe in fully that they take a hardline against, and I can't be right because I have things I believe in fully that they take a hardline against...or rather, they do on the national scale.

The thing about the US is that we're really a pretty regionally defined country when it comes to our state-wide (or even municipal) political groups. A Massachusetts democrat is not a Georgia democrat, a New York republican is not an Arizona republican, and to say differently is to conflate the very history of Massachusetts with Georgia, or New York with Arizona. It's just with the way that the two parties are pseudo-public; everyone uses the same two names but where you have the platform split can be wildly different.

This is also where the concept "All politics are local politics" comes from, which the DNC is sorta-kinda starting to realize after completely abandoning local politics once they got the White House in 2008. The problem currently is they've somehow warped that to mean "All local politics are to be treated as national politics" which really just bites everyones asses.

don't think there's a "Trump" among the democrats this time around in terms of his effect on the media though, so in that way I suppose it'll be different for them.
So I guess the question is "at what point should things be closed off?"
With regards to Yang; he's never held any political office and his entire platform is UBI. That isn't me saying UBI is a bad idea per se, but, let's face it. We just elected a reality TV show host with no actual experience with an entire platform of "Build a Wall" to the head of the most important country in the world. Could we just...not do that again?

With regards to a "Trump" among the batch this go around; wait 5 minutes, it's always possible. Remember that until facebook got torn a new one by the government, Mark Zuckerberg was setting the stage to try for 2020 before Trump had even been sworn in.

With regards to the DNC debates; I don't really know if there's a good answer for it, but I will say the people in charge of it probably are keeping in mind two main things; the hit in trust from the 2016 debates with the allegations that they were slanted in Clinton's favor, and the ever present shadow of the 1968 DNC convention riots.

Back to Bernie- I've looked into his voting record a bit and didn't find anything too contradictory, although there were some things I took issue with. I'll be looking closer as we get closer to the primaries.
Is there a reason you dislike his foreign policy? Initial impression for me seems like he leans dove.
I dislike his foreign policy for the several of the same reasons I dislike his domestic policy; he's a moron and economically illiterate. Much like Trump, he's a reactionary populist with a hate-on for trade deals, but with an added "benefit" of also having a hate-on for banks, businesses in general, and the US Treasury.

There's magnitudes more to foreign policy than "hawk-dove", especially when it comes to the US's central position in international trade and international economic stability.

Think back to your "why socialism" post for example; can you show how Sanders has aided in the three issues you brought up?

Sure. Abolition of slavery, in its historical context, is something that was so radical that it divided the nation like never before. The institution of slavery was HUGE, and abolition was an extreme position at the time. Something in the middle of the positions of abolition and continuing slavery would have been something along the lines of the "3/5ths compromise" but that's not what happened. It was an extreme solution to an extreme problem.
Your historical example for "centralism for it's own sake" in US politics is...the Civil War?

Just...what?

Again, I don't think you're quite getting what a moderate actually means vs what "My ideology, right or wrong" type like screeching that it means. If you aren't drinking the kool-aid, you're more moderate than the ones that do, yeah?

Me: Centrism isn't related to middle ground within topics, it's related to middle ground between party agendas.

You: HOW DARE YOU SAY THERE'S A MIDDLE GROUND WITHIN TOPICS

Look Werekill, if you're going to try and make a 500 word hot take at me, at least have the decency to engage with what I said and not whatever strawman you want to rage at today, yeah?

If you say "the madness won't end until either a third party candidate is in or enough people don't vote," I have a bridge to sell you.
> Calling people who say vote third party is actively harmful with their heads in the sand
> Sanders supporter

Pick one.

And while we're at it, explain how the the example I named in my previous post, Bill Clinton, isn't centrist.
 

Lore

Infinite Gravity
Moderator
Premium
GRimer
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
14,070
Location
Formerly 'Werekill' and 'NeoTermina'
#18
Ura Ura Sadly, most situations aren't an either/or today. It's insane how polarizing our issues are right now, and the only solution, in my opinion at least, is primarying out bad candidates. Thanks for engaging in the discussion with a fairly reasonable take, though.



Buddhahobo Buddhahobo Oh joy, someone who says I'm strawmanning while strawmanning himself, even to the point of calling my post "drivel." There isn't a middle ground in reality on most topics brought up today. Things really have degraded to that point. I am not saying that you specifically are this, but if you find moral superiority in finding some imaginary middle ground on every topic, you're a narcissistic child who has to feel superior to both sides.

What are you even saying with the Sanders supporter bit? I fully supported Sanders in the primary then voted for Clinton in the general election. If you're referring to the "Bernie or bust" idiots, they're a problem too.

Third party candidates aren't viable in our current system. There's no debating this after years of results being shown. Their best hope is slowly shifting party ideology through the Primary system until we can get a Preferential Ballot, the system where third parties become actually viable.

"But Werekill, primaries are a useless tool!" Then why has the Democrat party shifted hard to the left after Bernie? After progressive policies have provably received Primary votes? The entire party platform changed after the 2016 Primary; primaries are the best tool we have for internal change.

Also, why would I care whether Bill Clinton was centrist or not? He was sworn in 26 years ago and left 18 years ago. His views are entirely irrelevant to today's culture and political situation, just like Reagan's or Carter's.


You took my entire post, cut it out, turned it into a caricature, and brought up irrelevant points. I see no reason to further engage with you at this point, as you are arguing in bad faith with misleading tactics. I won't be responding further, but I hope you have a good day.
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
51
Location
Orlando, Florida
#19
With regards to Yang; he's never held any political office and his entire platform is UBI. That isn't me saying UBI is a bad idea per se, but, let's face it. We just elected a reality TV show host with no actual experience with an entire platform of "Build a Wall" to the head of the most important country in the world. Could we just...not do that again?
Yeah, that's very true. I think that's the one thing that holds him back most, and for good reason especially considering what we got with Trump. Despite how eloquent and planned he seems to be he never has held office, and that is a big liability.

With regards to a "Trump" among the batch this go around; wait 5 minutes, it's always possible. Remember that until facebook got torn a new one by the government, Mark Zuckerberg was setting the stage to try for 2020 before Trump had even been sworn in.
If Zuckerberg runs I think I'll try to pinch myself at least 3 times to convince myself I'm not living in some sort of hell dream haha.

I dislike his foreign policy for the several of the same reasons I dislike his domestic policy; he's a moron and economically illiterate. Much like Trump, he's a reactionary populist with a hate-on for trade deals, but with an added "benefit" of also having a hate-on for banks, businesses in general, and the US Treasury.

There's magnitudes more to foreign policy than "hawk-dove", especially when it comes to the US's central position in international trade and international economic stability.

Think back to your "why socialism" post for example; can you show how Sanders has aided in the three issues you brought up?
Ah I see, that is a good point. When I look at foreign policy, my main focus is on military aspects. I do admit I don't know much about trade deals and their effects. Since that's a vital topic, I definitely should look into those and see Bernie's positions on those. I'm not pro-Bernie or pro-anyone right now since I'm still looking into all the candidates, so I still have a lot to look into. I appreciate what you're saying though, gives me other things to look into in my search outside of the things I am most interested in.


Your historical example for "centralism for it's own sake" in US politics is...the Civil War?

Just...what?

Again, I don't think you're quite getting what a moderate actually means vs what "My ideology, right or wrong" type like screeching that it means. If you aren't drinking the kool-aid, you're more moderate than the ones that do, yeah?
No, that was a different point. Perhaps it's the lengthy messages with quote snippets that have mixed things up a bit but the reply chain was more like:

me: "And sometimes, an extreme problem might require an extreme solution. We've seen this historically in the US and it's not something that should be dismissed."
you: "Can you give historical examples in the US of this strawman, then? "
me: "Sure. Abolition of slavery, in its historical context, is something that was so radical that it divided the nation like never before. "

I was replying giving an example of a time when an extreme solution (abolition of slavery) was used to solve a problem.
What I was trying to showcase was that both extreme and moderate viewpoints should be understood and listened to in trying to understand what we need to do to move forward. I think in most cases it's just good practice to listen to those who have an opinion in the matter even if you don't agree with them, including moderates, radicals, and those who reject any label in general.

If you meant earlier that you'd like an example of "centrism for centrism's sake" however, I could provide that instead.


-----


Lore Lore
The best idea I could come up with in looking at the points you've brought up is that centrism would probably lie in the application of laws in addressing the issues to try and be in the middle of both sides. So like, for the marijuana example it would be perhaps "medical legality, but not recreational" or something like that. Which, again, if someone truly believes the medical use of marijuana is valid but that recreational use is harmful, than that's one thing. But I do take some issue in "well then let's just do this compromise" simply for the sake of being in the center.
I think often times what I see in that kind of viewpoint is someone who is detached from a problem that doesn't affect them personally trying to assert that they are rational for not being invested in it like either side is. An almost superiority complex that dismisses why people are fighting for issues important to them. To use another example you listed: LGBT discrimination.
Someone on the right fights for what they believe is religious practice in their business, and someone on the left fights for the right not to be discriminated against. Someone who sits back and is like "lol both sides are so radical I'm smart for not partaking in this extremism" isn't really helping anyone.
But yeah, at the end of the day many of the issues you are listing are issues where, in the grand scheme of things, you must take a stance. You can't "kinda" believe the US should be a Christian nation, you either believe it or you don't regardless of what proposals you bring up.

And for the record, I think being "right wing for its own sake" or "leftist for its own sake" is also bad too. I think everyone should think about and understand what their positions are and what their opponents think and decide for themself on every issue.
 
Last edited:

Lore

Infinite Gravity
Moderator
Premium
GRimer
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
14,070
Location
Formerly 'Werekill' and 'NeoTermina'
#20
Right, exactly. There are shades to many issues, and even a couple could have a compromise between them like marijuana. It's just very hard if not impossible on other issues.

I do also agree on right wing for it's own sake and left for it's own sake, for what it's worth.
 

J.I.L

Banned via Administration
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
327
#23
LOOOOOOOOL. That dnc debate was a joke. Lol, what a cringe. Pocohonatas... I’m mean Elizabeth warren (oh cmon, this is not strike worthy. The president of the darn USSA calls her that...,LOOOL) trying to cater to blacks using stereotypes of prison (yeah lump a group of people with being in prison and you as a white person are going to save them... all I see is straight colonialnism 2.0. White man save black man... give me a break... no blacks are voting for her)
Corey booker is stereotyped to be in bed with big pharama and not authentic.
Robert Orourke the European dude trying to speak Spanish to cater to people was the cringest thing I saw.

The internet sensation 1% polling tulsi Gabbard. She didn’t even stand for single payer health insurance and just campaign on “no war” give me a break? America is going to just be so weak with her at the realm. Now being largely anti war is fine, like trump, but the difference is if war comes... America will be prepared. Tulsi? Lol, we are just going to cave to whatever our enemies want like Northern Europe swedic countries caved and embraced hitler because they had like no military in ww2 and didn’t want “war”.

Who else? Castro? Poor mans version of Obama?
Deblasio? Low approval rating in his own city as New York is getting run to the ground?
Boring Tim? Tim Ryan that is? Lol, didn’t he get marked by tulsi?
Modest Amy? She’s so boring and it’s cringe trying to watch go for centrist appeal in a much lefter democratic base. Though she is a sleeper though. Free community college for is good, but that’s so modest and boring for what the dnc wants to be. She’ll pit me to sleep. She’s not going to win jack squat.
Democrats looking like clowns. I’ll be interested in next debate hall though. It should be better but that’s not saying much. Hahah, who’s going to be there to save the day?

Marxist Bernie? Give me a break. Marx and his movement died in the 50-60s, and was laid to rest by the 80s with regans economic boom and the wall tear down.No one wants soclaism. This neo Marx movement among millennials is just minority screaming the loudest. Most people with jobs and a well sustained life aren’t on YouTube talking about “the 1%” 24/7.

4chan troll powered yang? Loool. His movement is like a mix of alt right and far left coming together. People really think of they earn a 1,000 dollars a month by the government means that the economy and job opportunities will be even good enough to use that 1,000 dollars a month? Or right wingers only turning to him because of their robot conspiracy theory take over boogie man. Not realizing that his policy will just encourage and force business to delve into IT because yang government is going to tax the heck out of them.

Kamala Harris? Lol, I actually don’t have a problem with her. She looks way to much like someone close to me so I won’t roast her.

Pete Butt.igige? He seems to have a wide opening in this election but I think he’ll get the rear end of the stick towards the end of the dnc primaries.

Joe bidden? The guy who’s only position is platitude and being “normal”? Good luck with that.


Everyone else are too boring for me to even care about. Looks like mr. trump and pence got 2020 in the bag. The “resistance” will fail.
Watch as my post gets reported about 20 million times to like 50 differnt mods. I better not see a strike on my account. I didn’t do anything wrong or break any rules.
 
Last edited:

Sucumbio

Smash Powerslave
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
5,247
#24
...

Welcome to the debate hall. Ensure each point you make is backed up by proper sources. Link a news article, peer reviewed statistics, anything even Wikipedia though that's the laziest example. And no need to even mention moderation. This forum is open to a wide array of opinions and positions. Even unpopular ones. The key is to present a sustainable argument, back it with sources, and don't rely too heavily on personal experience.

This isn't an exact criticism of your post either just more of a friendly guideline for you to follow. You made several points but most of them are not defensible as stated moreso ranting. I'd suggest focusing your attention to one point at a time so others can have a chance to respond coherently. And watch for logical fallacies of course. Appealing to authority is a big no no. If you like there's a great reference tool to help guide your participation here so feel free to check it out!

https://smashboards.com/threads/updated-please-read-before-posting.386850/
 

J.I.L

Banned via Administration
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
327
#25
...

Welcome to the debate hall. Ensure each point you make is backed up by proper sources. Link a news article, peer reviewed statistics, anything even Wikipedia though that's the laziest example. And no need to even mention moderation. This forum is open to a wide array of opinions and positions. Even unpopular ones. The key is to present a sustainable argument, back it with sources, and don't rely too heavily on personal experience.

This isn't an exact criticism of your post either just more of a friendly guideline for you to follow. You made several points but most of them are not defensible as stated moreso ranting. I'd suggest focusing your attention to one point at a time so others can have a chance to respond coherently. And watch for logical fallacies of course. Appealing to authority is a big no no. If you like there's a great reference tool to help guide your participation here so feel free to check it out!

https://smashboards.com/threads/updated-please-read-before-posting.386850/
Doesn’t seem like anyone has interest in replying back so whatever.

Edit: I actually hope this place gets more active. I can’t really go on YouTube to discuss anything because it’s INFESTED ( I mean that in the most derogatory way) with yang cultist/trolls, EVERYWHERE. And they don’t even want to debate. All they do is just link yangs policy as if that does anything and scream “YaNg GAng”. I’m already aware of some of yangs policy. And they seem mostly leftist with a nice touch of libertarian. There’s no room for discussion. I guess reddit, but I don’t have a reddit account.

People, let us debate!
 
Last edited:

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
51
Location
Orlando, Florida
#26
Hi everyone! I updated the list to reflect the currently active folks running. If I am missing anyone, please let me know! Looks like there's quite the laundry list of democrats. I will also be watching at least part of the debates today. I may post my thoughts about them later, so hopefully others can do the same and we can get a discussion going. I'm going into them mostly without seeing clips or anything, and I'll be jotting down notes.

(I'll be editing this post most likely, so stay tuned)
 
Last edited:

J.I.L

Banned via Administration
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
327
#27
Hi everyone! I updated the list to reflect the currently active folks running. If I am missing anyone, please let me know! Looks like there's quite the laundry list of democrats. I will also be watching at least part of the debates today. I may post my thoughts about them later, so hopefully others can do the same and we can get a discussion going. I'm going into them mostly without seeing clips or anything, and I'll be jotting down notes.

(I'll be editing this post most likely, so stay tuned)
Did you not see my post already giving thoughts on the debate? also, the debate happened days ago. You're late.
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
51
Location
Orlando, Florida
#28
Did you not see my post already giving thoughts on the debate? also, the debate happened days ago. You're late.
I know I'm late, I just had a lot going on since I recently moved and I figured watching it in my leisure meant I could skip commercials too, so it'd be a win-win.
I did see your post. I figured it'd be better for me to watch the debates first before responding to what you said since I wouldn't be really giving any good feedback without having watched it first. I'll most likely be mentioning things from my notes and specific things about statements they make, the questions asked, the interactions between candidates, etc etc.
 

J.I.L

Banned via Administration
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
327
#29
I know I'm late, I just had a lot going on since I recently moved and I figured watching it in my leisure meant I could skip commercials too, so it'd be a win-win.
I did see your post. I figured it'd be better for me to watch the debates first before responding to what you said since I wouldn't be really giving any good feedback without having watched it first. I'll most likely be mentioning things from my notes and specific things about statements they make, the questions asked, the interactions between candidates, etc etc.
Take your time.
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
51
Location
Orlando, Florida
#30
Alright, so I watched one round of the debates, so I will post my thoughts about that round. Tomorrow I will watch the other round featuring the other 10 debaters. I will say my thoughts on candidates in alphabetical order.

Michael Bennet (CO) - There isn't really too much to say here. I'd say his most notable moment was when he talked about his mother suffering as a child in Poland due to WW2. He carried the most compassion when he was talking about that. He also did oppose Bernie on Medicare for all, which overall seems to be the topic most focused on this time around. I don't see him going too far as his charisma was pretty low compared to other candidates and he didn't have any "key policy" that stood out or defined him from the others.

Joe Biden (DE) - Boy what a beating did Biden take! He wasn't doing too hot in the beginning but after Harris went for his throat with his opposition to the busing which affected her personally, he seemed like he just couldn't get back on his feet again, with some moments just devoid of him receiving any positive reception from the audience whatsover. As one of the top democrat hopefuls, this debate probably harmed him a lot when he was supposed to be gaining traction. As probably the most centrist on the stage there were times when the "show of hands" questions seemed to be reluctantly roping him into answering in a way he didn't want to answer. He is clearly not on the popular side of things with the trends of how the other democrats were on stage. He was also thrown for a loop when it was brought up that the Obama administration was very pro-deportation, a position he had trouble refuting. Overall, a bad showing for him.

Pete Buttigieg (IN) - I'm from Miami, and I'm Cuban. Let me just say it's so transparent when he started with the Spanish introduction. It's basically like saying "Hey latinos! Please vote for me!" C'mon man. Aside from that though he was one of the stronger candidates on stage- he was pretty eloquent although sometimes it did get a little too wordy for the average person to follow easily I think. He brought a unique perspective about rural America and climate change that I think he is trying to put at the front of his campaign. He's definitely not a frontrunner right now, but he's not doing terribly. Maybe a dark horse in this election process?

Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) - In the beginning she was kind of all over the place, very "hog the mic." It was painful to watch. After the break however she caught her cool and performed much better. Her main contention with others seemed to be about healthcare and not going single-payer, she clashed with Bernie on this. However, her forefront issue that separated her from the others was corruption and money in politics and she did a good job in the latter half bringing that up and explaining why it was relevant. I think she caught her footing near the end and I want to know more about her anti-corruption plans. It would have been interesting to see her debate Warren on this since Warren is apparently known for her anti-corruption proposals. I think she will be staying around for a bit but definitely not a front runner right now.

Kamala Harris (CA) - Definitely the undeniable star of the show here. She was very charismatic, very presidential. She was easily able to go into a poetic and eloquent way of speaking but then shift into a "let's do some real talk, you and me" speaking as well. Overall, I was pretty impressed. Her jab at Biden was very smart. She was able to take him down and ride that wave but did it in a way that wasn't framing her as mean. She was also good at rallying attention back to important topics when things were getting out of hand. She seemed to be mostly about immigration- namely taking away detention centers and reuniting families together without deportation. She seemed to cosign a lot of what Bernie said too, and I think in the process she was telling left-leaning democrats "Hey, I'm on your side, not Biden." It ill be interesting seeing what she does moving forward. After this I think she is a force to be reckoned with for sure.

John Hickenlooper (CO) - One of the quieter presences on stage. Not very charismatic. His main issue was climate change and taking a collaborative approach with oil companies to try and implement solutions. This didn't seem like it was met very enthusiastically by others on stage however. I see him as one of the "forgettables" as he didn't have a lot of screen time and his issues were mostly lukewarm.

Bernie Sanders (VT) - Probably one of the candidates with the most screen time in the debate, he was able to get a lot said. He mostly spoke in general statements, even when asked for specific answers. Sometimes it worked, like when he said he wanted to implement single payer healthcare system. But other times, it didn't, like when they asked about diversity and he went on to say something about an economic problem in the US (although honestly they could have spoken about something better than diversity in such a large debate). Overall I think he performed well, and he picked himself up at the end. He was kinda petering out in the middle. He seemed to align with Harris on quite a number of issues so it will be interesting to see how he gets people to vote for him over her. With Biden taking a hit however, he's easily one of the frontrunners and possibly even at the forefront.

Eric Swalwell (CA) - One of the other forgettable ones to be honest. He said to "pass the torch" to Biden which was a nice little jab but he brought it up several times after and it got pretty old. He didn't speak a lot in terms of specific policy but rather in terms of "we are the new generation, we'll do stuff." so he wasn't too strong of a presence.

Marianne Williamson (TX) - What an interesting character. On the one hand, she has moments when she speaks and she sounds compelling and passionate and engaged. On the other... half the time what she was saying didn't seem to make sense. The "New Zealand" moment sure was interesting. Saying someone with a plan won't beat Trump isn't exactly the best look. And while I applaud her attempts to fight with the force of love, as she put it, I don't think such things are relevant to mention when the other candidates are hashing out the issues.

Andrew Yang (NY) - Honestly, he seemed like a specter this debate. He definitely wasn't assertive enough and it showed. I think he had the least screen time of the candidates and he didn't seem to try and bring up his points unless called on. Perhaps he was too polite? He did get to mention his main issue which was the freedom dividend but with the speed at which the debate went it seemed like it was a mere footnote rather than a topic they discussed in length. I was hoping he'd bring up a conversation about automation but it went nowhere. Under the radar, and probably one of the candidates who is in trouble at this point in regards to recognition.

OVERALL THOUGHTS:

It was a little disorganized with how they were speaking to each other and how they added way more to their answers than was needed. ("In one word, tell me..." -candidates proceed to speak a whole paragraph-)
Healthcare and immigration were dwelled on probably the most, with climate change taking second place Honestly, I'm glad because those issues are big ones in this election, but I think the sheer size of participants and how they glossed over topics made it so that I still don't know in detail what everyone's stance is.
I'm shocked they barely spoke Foreign Policy, and I'm hoping the other debate will go into that topic more. I think they could've ditched diversity and abortion for foreign policy because most democrats will pretty much be on the same page in diversity is good, abortion should be protected. Foreign Policy will definitely differ though.
All in all I'm taking this as a sample of composure more than anything and to see if candidates can put their key issue out in an effective way. In that test, I think Harris definitely took charge in the debates. In the future, I want to see more specific policies discussed and voting/legislation history as well.

And that's my brief summary of watching the debates round 1 (technically round 2 since it was the second night of debates haha). Tomorrow I will hopefully watch the other debate and post my thoughts about that one.

Also sorry for any spelling/grammar errors- I'm half asleep haha
 
Last edited:

Alicorn

Vampire Lord ❤️
Premium
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
372
Location
Cafe
#31
I am curious to see how Bernie is going to implement his ideals into congress, they seem too grand, his fifteen dollars an hour thing is a small business nightmare, They don't have that kind of money to pay their empolyees, they would have to raise prices and reduce the size of the labor force to cover such a massive pay raise, higher prices means less goods will be bought and sold, low sales leading to small businesses having to let people go to stay afloat,
 

J.I.L

Banned via Administration
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
327
#32
Alright, so I watched one round of the debates, so I will post my thoughts about that round. Tomorrow I will watch the other round featuring the other 10 debaters. I will say my thoughts on candidates in alphabetical order.

Michael Bennet (CO) - There isn't really too much to say here. I'd say his most notable moment was when he talked about his mother suffering as a child in Poland due to WW2. He carried the most compassion when he was talking about that. He also did oppose Bernie on Medicare for all, which overall seems to be the topic most focused on this time around. I don't see him going too far as his charisma was pretty low compared to other candidates and he didn't have any "key policy" that stood out or defined him from the others.

Joe Biden (DE) - Boy what a beating did Biden take! He wasn't doing too hot in the beginning but after Harris went for his throat with his opposition to the busing which affected her personally, he seemed like he just couldn't get back on his feet again, with some moments just devoid of him receiving any positive reception from the audience whatsover. As one of the top democrat hopefuls, this debate probably harmed him a lot when he was supposed to be gaining traction. As probably the most centrist on the stage there were times when the "show of hands" questions seemed to be reluctantly roping him into answering in a way he didn't want to answer. He is clearly not on the popular side of things with the trends of how the other democrats were on stage. He was also thrown for a loop when it was brought up that the Obama administration was very pro-deportation, a position he had trouble refuting. Overall, a bad showing for him.

Pete Buttigieg (IN) - I'm from Miami, and I'm Cuban. Let me just say it's so transparent when he started with the Spanish introduction. It's basically like saying "Hey latinos! Please vote for me!" C'mon man. Aside from that though he was one of the stronger candidates on stage- he was pretty eloquent although sometimes it did get a little too wordy for the average person to follow easily I think. He brought a unique perspective about rural America and climate change that I think he is trying to put at the front of his campaign. He's definitely not a frontrunner right now, but he's not doing terribly. Maybe a dark horse in this election process?

Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) - In the beginning she was kind of all over the place, very "hog the mic." It was painful to watch. After the break however she caught her cool and performed much better. Her main contention with others seemed to be about healthcare and not going single-payer, she clashed with Bernie on this. However, her forefront issue that separated her from the others was corruption and money in politics and she did a good job in the latter half bringing that up and explaining why it was relevant. I think she caught her footing near the end and I want to know more about her anti-corruption plans. It would have been interesting to see her debate Warren on this since Warren is apparently known for her anti-corruption proposals. I think she will be staying around for a bit but definitely not a front runner right now.

Kamala Harris (CA) - Definitely the undeniable star of the show here. She was very charismatic, very presidential. She was easily able to go into a poetic and eloquent way of speaking but then shift into a "let's do some real talk, you and me" speaking as well. Overall, I was pretty impressed. Her jab at Biden was very smart. She was able to take him down and ride that wave but did it in a way that wasn't framing her as mean. She was also good at rallying attention back to important topics when things were getting out of hand. She seemed to be mostly about immigration- namely taking away detention centers and reuniting families together without deportation. She seemed to cosign a lot of what Bernie said too, and I think in the process she was telling left-leaning democrats "Hey, I'm on your side, not Biden." It ill be interesting seeing what she does moving forward. After this I think she is a force to be reckoned with for sure.

John Hickenlooper (CO) - One of the quieter presences on stage. Not very charismatic. His main issue was climate change and taking a collaborative approach with oil companies to try and implement solutions. This didn't seem like it was met very enthusiastically by others on stage however. I see him as one of the "forgettables" as he didn't have a lot of screen time and his issues were mostly lukewarm.

Bernie Sanders (VT) - Probably one of the candidates with the most screen time in the debate, he was able to get a lot said. He mostly spoke in general statements, even when asked for specific answers. Sometimes it worked, like when he said he wanted to implement single payer healthcare system. But other times, it didn't, like when they asked about diversity and he went on to say something about an economic problem in the US (although honestly they could have spoken about something better than diversity in such a large debate). Overall I think he performed well, and he picked himself up at the end. He was kinda petering out in the middle. He seemed to align with Harris on quite a number of issues so it will be interesting to see how he gets people to vote for him over her. With Biden taking a hit however, he's easily one of the frontrunners and possibly even at the forefront.

Eric Swalwell (CA) - One of the other forgettable ones to be honest. He said to "pass the torch" to Biden which was a nice little jab but he brought it up several times after and it got pretty old. He didn't speak a lot in terms of specific policy but rather in terms of "we are the new generation, we'll do stuff." so he wasn't too strong of a presence.

Marianne Williamson (TX) - What an interesting character. On the one hand, she has moments when she speaks and she sounds compelling and passionate and engaged. On the other... half the time what she was saying didn't seem to make sense. The "New Zealand" moment sure was interesting. Saying someone with a plan won't beat Trump isn't exactly the best look. And while I applaud her attempts to fight with the force of love, as she put it, I don't think such things are relevant to mention when the other candidates are hashing out the issues.

Andrew Yang (NY) - Honestly, he seemed like a specter this debate. He definitely wasn't assertive enough and it showed. I think he had the least screen time of the candidates and he didn't seem to try and bring up his points unless called on. Perhaps he was too polite? He did get to mention his main issue which was the freedom dividend but with the speed at which the debate went it seemed like it was a mere footnote rather than a topic they discussed in length. I was hoping he'd bring up a conversation about automation but it went nowhere. Under the radar, and probably one of the candidates who is in trouble at this point in regards to recognition.

OVERALL THOUGHTS:

It was a little disorganized with how they were speaking to each other and how they added way more to their answers than was needed. ("In one word, tell me..." -candidates proceed to speak a whole paragraph-)
Healthcare and immigration were dwelled on probably the most, with climate change taking second place Honestly, I'm glad because those issues are big ones in this election, but I think the sheer size of participants and how they glossed over topics made it so that I still don't know in detail what everyone's stance is.
I'm shocked they barely spoke Foreign Policy, and I'm hoping the other debate will go into that topic more. I think they could've ditched diversity and abortion for foreign policy because most democrats will pretty much be on the same page in diversity is good, abortion should be protected. Foreign Policy will definitely differ though.
All in all I'm taking this as a sample of composure more than anything and to see if candidates can put their key issue out in an effective way. In that test, I think Harris definitely took charge in the debates. In the future, I want to see more specific policies discussed and voting/legislation history as well.

And that's my brief summary of watching the debates round 1 (technically round 2 since it was the second night of debates haha). Tomorrow I will hopefully watch the other debate and post my thoughts about that one.

Also sorry for any spelling/grammar errors- I'm half asleep haha
Micheal Bennett - what got him into the race was that he had a break out moment in congress critizing some rebulicans. He definitely is forgettable.
He’s get curb stomped by trump. As you said, policy doesn’t stand out. He doesn’t seem witty and lacks charisma.

Joe Biden - true, but joe is one of those people that have more of an huge swath of silent majority base. His base is more of the white working class in like southern/western areas. They for one could give a squat about a lot of social issues Democrats focus on but more so on the economic pragmatics to build up the middle class. Plus there is also that Obama lolyalst factor and I saw on social media some people weren’t happy at how aggressive Harris was.
He could spell a big problem for trump. He could get the swing states back, and that’s what Biden is looking at. He kinda looks down on the others trying to attack him, hence why he said beating trump is first and foremost. Deal with policy later. Lol. Though what would hurt him in general election is he’s produce low tournout among leftist and would go only a small portion of conservatives. And would lose a bunch of centrist moderates (a portion of them) because his policy might not be well established as supposed to trump who’ve we have seen.

Pete buttigieg - he’s young, he has very astute credentials and talents plus he has a very amicable demeanor. His policy seem to hit at home where the majority of Democrats are. The problem is people will think it’s not his time, Pete isn’t that strong on policy nor is Pete confrontationan. He’ll definitely be in top 5. He could spell disaster for others.
He could be deadly in a national election. He’s a media darling. Though idk if America will except a gay guy. If the dude wasn’t gay, he’d even more of national election threat then Biden. And he also has Skelton closets as he didn’t do the best job as mayor in south bend.

Kristen gillibrand - don’t know much about her. She has a history of being duplicitous on many social/economic issues. Her base is trying to target suburbs moms.... eh. Don’t know if that’s big enough base, as it shows in the polls. She’s a blonde white lady too, don’t know if that fits the box on the democratic “social woke” philosophy. But yeah, like to hear more from her.

She’s a worse version of Hillary and trump has only gotten stronger since 2016. She’d get pulverized by him. Nuff said.

Bernie Sanders - the infamous Bernie Sanders. The new age prophet of Marx, himself. Yeah, Bernie Sanders talked about the same thing he usually talks about. Wealth inequality and healthcare. Some people said that it was stale, repetitive and boring. While his base was reassured by his consistency in talking about the issues he first spoke into existence before younger dems bandwagoned his ideas. Lol. He’ll need to take a book from warren and be more matriculate about how he’ll get those ideas. Especially if McConnell is still we are majority leader. The dude said he’s a grim reaper to Sanders-esq policy.

I used to be very worried about how someone like sanders could win a national election, but that because sanders was the victim against Hillary and so you only saw positive and his supporters when talking about him. Now that he is being more dissected, it’s auite obvious he’d struggle in a national eection. His economic policy would be a huge turn off to everyone bar poverished people or low working class people. He may have friction in his own base because I see a lot of Bernie supporters wish he could treat them how trump treats his base even if that means amassing and basically taken over the entire party as the central figure head leader like trump did. Idk if Bernie would s that. At least not yet. So that’s tick off some of his more independent supporters. 3rd, he had to compete against an great economy and so that’s hurt him. 4th, he’s agnostic. Don’t know how that’ll play out since mostly everyone in prior generals were Christian at least in name. plus Bernie would struggle to get corporate dems, Hollywood and powerful liberal institutions on his side because they’d be well weary of his policy. He’d have most huge corpsrstions and industry fighting vicioussly against him which trump would greatly take advtnage since these instruction like insurance company, fossils fuels etc are
Fighting for their existence... yeah. Sanders has way to much going against him. Plus I feel like his base is going to do something stupid and get negative press. Plus are we forgetting about HOWARD SCHULTS? Lol, he’s just going to take votes from sanders in many swing areas which would spell doom for democrats.
Sanders has a lot going against him, though he does have a dedicated base of followers. Turnout among progressives is not going to be issue at least.

Kamal Harris - fiesty woman but I’m not sold she’ll keep this surge. She just got folks by surprise. She’s going to get ripped apart next debate because she has a ton of Skelton’s in the closet as like prosecutors. She’s also has that duplicitous stigma of Kristen gillibrand. Bandwagon issues that you weren’t originally for because it’ll help you get elected. Plus the streets she runs are filthy and full of poverty, wether a candidate would dare to bring that up is beyond me. I know the liberal media won’t. Lol.

She’s Hillary 2.0 but this time a minority and more leftist, plus more inexperienced and composed. LOOOL, she’ll lose. She won’t get any person from the other side so she’ll just have to amass enough Democrats. The election of her and trump would definitely be the most tribal election in history. And the debate would be mud slinging rather then informing which I would enjoy with popcorn and great delight. She’ll get minority’s turnout specifically African American, shell struggle getting the warrens/Bernie’s support and in the New England. She’ll have the backing of liberal media and Hollywood for sure plus the dnc would be committed to her since she fits the bill well of their “racial woke” sentiment. Though she’d lose to trump. Probably worse then Hillary.

John hicklepooper - his name alone won’t get him in office. He’d great crushed. Next

Eric swadell- dude is a laugh stock among circles. His stance on gun rights gives him reconigzitoon among Democrats but Democrats only. He probably won’t get far. He also has a non appealing look, too.
He’d get smoked by trump. Don’t even need to explain why.

Marriane Williamson - an enchanting lady, give her that. Okay but in all serious I like what she said about love, and how she was courteous to the president. Lol, I wouldn’t mind if she won the primary. It’d be interesting debate between them. But she’s putrid on policy plus she doesn’t seem to understand much about government. If someone like her ran this country... that’d be the end of America.shes the type of person who’ll need load management because of the stress, not understanding what she signed up for. And we’d probably be st war with something shortly.
She’d get stomp by trump. She’d produce low turnout among Democrats and probably would be so bad she’d lose to 3rd party.

Andrew yang - didn’t get to speak. Heard his mike got cut off too, he’s still a rising star though and is s true dark horse. His publicity is rising as he was one of the most researched candidates. His UBI attract much interest. His base is annoying. They literally hog up entire social threads screaming “YaNg GAnG”.
He’d... idk. He’d definitely be one of the most challenging candidate to trump on national stage. The mere fact of promoising 1,000 bucks a month is going to get people to polls, regardless of consequence. He’ll get a lot of progressives and some right wingers. He’ll struggle with establishment democrats though, and he’s weak on democrat social issues. He could beat trump, though I wouldn’t favor him.


Conclusion: good game from democrats. Though when they all raised their hand giving illegal immigrant healthcare coverage is going to hurt in national election but whatever. Trump still looks like favorite to win the whole thing.

Alicorn Alicorn exactly. He’s going to kill a lot of small business with his garbage economic policy.
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
51
Location
Orlando, Florida
#33
Micheal Bennett - what got him into the race was that he had a break out moment in congress critizing some rebulicans. He definitely is forgettable.
He’s get curb stomped by trump. As you said, policy doesn’t stand out. He doesn’t seem witty and lacks charisma.
Well, guess there's not much else to say here LOL

Joe Biden - true, but joe is one of those people that have more of an huge swath of silent majority base. His base is more of the white working class in like southern/western areas. They for one could give a squat about a lot of social issues Democrats focus on but more so on the economic pragmatics to build up the middle class. Plus there is also that Obama lolyalst factor and I saw on social media some people weren’t happy at how aggressive Harris was.
He could spell a big problem for trump. He could get the swing states back, and that’s what Biden is looking at. He kinda looks down on the others trying to attack him, hence why he said beating trump is first and foremost. Deal with policy later. Lol. Though what would hurt him in general election is he’s produce low tournout among leftist and would go only a small portion of conservatives. And would lose a bunch of centrist moderates (a portion of them) because his policy might not be well established as supposed to trump who’ve we have seen.
Honestly this whole "Let's focus on beating Trump first and policy later" thing is ridiculous. Use the policies you create to attract voters to you in order to defeat Trump. They aren't mutually exclusive. I'm saying this under Joe but this goes for all democrats saying this as well. Honestly painting Trump out to be the singular source of all of America's problems isn't helping anyone. There were problems before he got into office, there are problems during, and there will be problems after.
I mean, I guess that's what a lot of democrats want to hear- "anyone but Trump" but honestly I wish I could just hear sensible or at least detailed policies that will get me on board with someone.
Anyways, I think he absolutely will have the "Hillary" effect of not getting leftists on board with him, especially with his lukewarm presence in the elections so far. And he doesn't have the "I'm a woman" factor to court me people in either. I think over time his appeal is going to go down further for people, but well have to wait and see.

Pete buttigieg - he’s young, he has very astute credentials and talents plus he has a very amicable demeanor. His policy seem to hit at home where the majority of Democrats are. The problem is people will think it’s not his time, Pete isn’t that strong on policy nor is Pete confrontationan. He’ll definitely be in top 5. He could spell disaster for others.
He could be deadly in a national election. He’s a media darling. Though idk if America will except a gay guy. If the dude wasn’t gay, he’d even more of national election threat then Biden. And he also has Skelton closets as he didn’t do the best job as mayor in south bend.
Pretty much agree with what you said. To be honest, I didn't even know he way gay until he briefly mentioned the Supreme Court ruling in the debate about his marriage, and even then I was like "wait, what was wrong with his marriage that he needed to go to the court? OH RIGHT." LMAO.
I haven't heard anything about his mayoral blunders but it will be an important read as we move forward and he likely keep relevance. Like you said, I def see him in the top 5 right now so he's not going away any time soon.
In terms of a gay president- I think we're close but not there yet. Still too many people in this nation opposed to that and I have no doubt evangelicals will go rounding up huge numbers if it's a him vs Trump deal.

Kristen gillibrand - don’t know much about her. She has a history of being duplicitous on many social/economic issues. Her base is trying to target suburbs moms.... eh. Don’t know if that’s big enough base, as it shows in the polls. She’s a blonde white lady too, don’t know if that fits the box on the democratic “social woke” philosophy. But yeah, like to hear more from her.

She’s a worse version of Hillary and trump has only gotten stronger since 2016. She’d get pulverized by him. Nuff said.
Honestly I really hope democrats vote based on who the best is and not based on what group the person falls under. She's a woman which would be a first, but we shouldn't elect her just for that fact. It should be her policies that make her electable, not her gender. That said, this is democrats we're talking about lol. Buuut, of the woman running I think she's one of the lesser notable (Warren, Harris, and Gabbard are more standouts I think right now).
In defense of her, she does seem serious on at least trying to get corruption out of politics which is already in itself something way better than Hillary. But again, not sure how she will be able to compete with Warren on that one seemed as that's Warren's claim to fame. She also apparently has a dirty history with how she treated her workers and behind doors has a big temper. Not sure how true that is but I've heard it circulating now from multiple people. She's definitely not a frontrunner but still not irrelevant either. She's going to have to really make herself stand out if she wants to keep up.

Bernie Sanders - the infamous Bernie Sanders. The new age prophet of Marx, himself. Yeah, Bernie Sanders talked about the same thing he usually talks about. Wealth inequality and healthcare. Some people said that it was stale, repetitive and boring. While his base was reassured by his consistency in talking about the issues he first spoke into existence before younger dems bandwagoned his ideas. Lol. He’ll need to take a book from warren and be more matriculate about how he’ll get those ideas. Especially if McConnell is still we are majority leader. The dude said he’s a grim reaper to Sanders-esq policy.

I used to be very worried about how someone like sanders could win a national election, but that because sanders was the victim against Hillary and so you only saw positive and his supporters when talking about him. Now that he is being more dissected, it’s auite obvious he’d struggle in a national eection. His economic policy would be a huge turn off to everyone bar poverished people or low working class people. He may have friction in his own base because I see a lot of Bernie supporters wish he could treat them how trump treats his base even if that means amassing and basically taken over the entire party as the central figure head leader like trump did. Idk if Bernie would s that. At least not yet. So that’s tick off some of his more independent supporters. 3rd, he had to compete against an great economy and so that’s hurt him. 4th, he’s agnostic. Don’t know how that’ll play out since mostly everyone in prior generals were Christian at least in name. plus Bernie would struggle to get corporate dems, Hollywood and powerful liberal institutions on his side because they’d be well weary of his policy. He’d have most huge corpsrstions and industry fighting vicioussly against him which trump would greatly take advtnage since these instruction like insurance company, fossils fuels etc are
Fighting for their existence... yeah. Sanders has way to much going against him. Plus I feel like his base is going to do something stupid and get negative press. Plus are we forgetting about HOWARD SCHULTS? Lol, he’s just going to take votes from sanders in many swing areas which would spell doom for democrats.
Sanders has a lot going against him, though he does have a dedicated base of followers. Turnout among progressives is not going to be issue at least.
I was among the people who thought his talking points were stale at times- at points he just flat out didn't answer the question so he could talk about wealth inequality. It's like, we get it Bernie but we want to see some other answers from you too. But there were definitely moments where that shone for him, and he still does have a lot of support. Agreed on how he needs to be more specific with his plans- I don't think his goals are impossible but he will need to be very specific in his methodology of how he is going to get there, because that will be the make-or-break for a lot of people. Until he has that methodology, it will seem like his goals, are in fact, impossible. At least to many.
I'm still wondering how exactly he is going to do. I agree he is going to have a harder time this round than last. And honestly, I don't think progressives will be guaranteed to vote for him either, at least until the playing field narrows. Between him and Hillary, the choice was obvious. But between him and the other candidates now, progressives have the ability to shop around a bit.
I agree his supporters may get him negative press, whether warranted or unwarranted. I remember the critique of "Bernie Bros" and the mess that was. A lot of it I saw was "they only want to vote for Bernie cuz they hate women" which although I bet was true in very extreme cases, I think most of Bernies fans were with him more because of his stances or their dislike for Hillary's stances rather than the simple fact that he was a man. At least among progressive voters he rallied.
Also, I actually didn't know he was agnostic. I thought he was Jewish? Er, not to say Jewish people can't be agnostic but I thought he was a practicing Jew. Agnosticism could hurt him when there's still a religious stronghold in the US. I think atheists (even thought not the same as being agnostic, many people equate the two) are one of the groups that had the most negative reception when polled about who you would not vote for president.
All that said, I think for now he is a definite frontrunner but he is going to have to keep his eyes peeled and be wary because the competition is tough and he will be scrutinized more this time around.

Kamal Harris - fiesty woman but I’m not sold she’ll keep this surge. She just got folks by surprise. She’s going to get ripped apart next debate because she has a ton of Skelton’s in the closet as like prosecutors. She’s also has that duplicitous stigma of Kristen gillibrand. Bandwagon issues that you weren’t originally for because it’ll help you get elected. Plus the streets she runs are filthy and full of poverty, wether a candidate would dare to bring that up is beyond me. I know the liberal media won’t. Lol.

She’s Hillary 2.0 but this time a minority and more leftist, plus more inexperienced and composed. LOOOL, she’ll lose. She won’t get any person from the other side so she’ll just have to amass enough Democrats. The election of her and trump would definitely be the most tribal election in history. And the debate would be mud slinging rather then informing which I would enjoy with popcorn and great delight. She’ll get minority’s turnout specifically African American, shell struggle getting the warrens/Bernie’s support and in the New England. She’ll have the backing of liberal media and Hollywood for sure plus the dnc would be committed to her since she fits the bill well of their “racial woke” sentiment. Though she’d lose to trump. Probably worse then Hillary.
Although I agree to some extent with what you project in where she's have trouble getting support- New England, Bernie/Warren supporters- I think she definitely has a chance. She has skeletons in the closet from prosecution, and she will have to deal with those, but recall that Hillary also had her fair share of blunders too and a dedicated base of haters. Despite that, Hillary did make it pretty far. And Harris, in public, has a great composure unlike Hillary who feels robotic. Having those things going for her plus the black vote is going to help her tremendously and I think she's definitely going to be in it for the long haul.
I admittedly was surprised by her performance too. Before, I thought she was lukewarm and wouldn't be able to compete with Sanders in the debates. In a way I was right, as she seemed to side with him and attack Biden instead, which definitely made her coming out looking a winner. She was smart not to go for Bernie in this early stage. But she definitely showed "I can be presidential and also relatable at once."
That said, you're right- she has a history of flip flopping on issues. She needs to iron that out gracefully and create specific and detailed plans that support her policy. If she does that, I think she will increase her already good following. She has momentum right now. We'll have to see if she rides it successfully or if she gets ripped apart in the next debates like you said. I could see either happening.

John hicklepooper - his name alone won’t get him in office. He’d great crushed. Next
Cosigned.

Eric swadell- dude is a laugh stock among circles. His stance on gun rights gives him reconigzitoon among Democrats but Democrats only. He probably won’t get far. He also has a non appealing look, too.
He’d get smoked by trump. Don’t even need to explain why.
He just seems like a naive child in the face of bigger names and he was trying to use his youth to his advantage without presenting clear policies outside of his gun policy which I don't think would fare well with most Americans. Not really expecting him to make it far.

Marriane Williamson - an enchanting lady, give her that. Okay but in all serious I like what she said about love, and how she was courteous to the president. Lol, I wouldn’t mind if she won the primary. It’d be interesting debate between them. But she’s putrid on policy plus she doesn’t seem to understand much about government. If someone like her ran this country... that’d be the end of America.shes the type of person who’ll need load management because of the stress, not understanding what she signed up for. And we’d probably be st war with something shortly.
She’d get stomp by trump. She’d produce low turnout among Democrats and probably would be so bad she’d lose to 3rd party.
Yeah, I honestly think her intentions are good and they shine. She's a woman who'd make a good friend or have a long conversation with. But not a woman I want running the nation. I mean, everyone else had "mayor" "senator" etc under their name. She had "author." She has not the experience to be trying to achieve such a lofty goal without knowing fully what the job entails. I commend her for running and I like listening to her thoughts, but she's definitely not fit for office.

Andrew yang - didn’t get to speak. Heard his mike got cut off too, he’s still a rising star though and is s true dark horse. His publicity is rising as he was one of the most researched candidates. His UBI attract much interest. His base is annoying. They literally hog up entire social threads screaming “YaNg GAnG”.
He’d... idk. He’d definitely be one of the most challenging candidate to trump on national stage. The mere fact of promoising 1,000 bucks a month is going to get people to polls, regardless of consequence. He’ll get a lot of progressives and some right wingers. He’ll struggle with establishment democrats though, and he’s weak on democrat social issues. He could beat trump, though I wouldn’t favor him.
I would honestly love to see him debate Trump because among the dems I say last night I'd say he is the most methodical and intellectual. That contrast would be really interesting to watch. I think among online political communities he appears more popular than he will actually be. I just don't see a huge portion of democrats voting for him when he lacks the passion on social issues that liberal democrats are looking for and he's far too left economically for establishment and centrist dems. I honestly think he has a slim to none chance right now, but we'll see if he can pick up his footing.

Conclusion: good game from democrats. Though when they all raised their hand giving illegal immigrant healthcare coverage is going to hurt in national election but whatever. Trump still looks like favorite to win the whole thing.
It definitely went better than expected, although my expectations for dems were very low to begin with lol. As he's incumbent and still has a strong rallying support base I think Trump has a strong chance of re-election, but I can't say for sure how much I believe he will be re-elected until the massive pool of democrats narrows and we see just who exactly he will be up against.
Healthcare coverage for illegal immigrants looked like it may have been a "I'll raise my hand because everyone else is" issue. Biden in particular looked like he was being forced against his will to do it, I doubt that he actually believes that, but I could be wrong.
Watching the other debate tonight will be, hopefully, as interesting as this one. I doubt it since most of the big names were in this one, but I might be surprised.
Thanks for your thoughts on these candidates, I'll post when I watch the other and we can discuss the others as well.
 

J.I.L

Banned via Administration
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
327
#34
Well, guess there's not much else to say here LOL


Honestly this whole "Let's focus on beating Trump first and policy later" thing is ridiculous. Use the policies you create to attract voters to you in order to defeat Trump. They aren't mutually exclusive. I'm saying this under Joe but this goes for all democrats saying this as well. Honestly painting Trump out to be the singular source of all of America's problems isn't helping anyone. There were problems before he got into office, there are problems during, and there will be problems after.
I mean, I guess that's what a lot of democrats want to hear- "anyone but Trump" but honestly I wish I could just hear sensible or at least detailed policies that will get me on board with someone.
Anyways, I think he absolutely will have the "Hillary" effect of not getting leftists on board with him, especially with his lukewarm presence in the elections so far. And he doesn't have the "I'm a woman" factor to court me people in either. I think over time his appeal is going to go down further for people, but well have to wait and see.


Pretty much agree with what you said. To be honest, I didn't even know he way gay until he briefly mentioned the Supreme Court ruling in the debate about his marriage, and even then I was like "wait, what was wrong with his marriage that he needed to go to the court? OH RIGHT." LMAO.
I haven't heard anything about his mayoral blunders but it will be an important read as we move forward and he likely keep relevance. Like you said, I def see him in the top 5 right now so he's not going away any time soon.
In terms of a gay president- I think we're close but not there yet. Still too many people in this nation opposed to that and I have no doubt evangelicals will go rounding up huge numbers if it's a him vs Trump deal.


Honestly I really hope democrats vote based on who the best is and not based on what group the person falls under. She's a woman which would be a first, but we shouldn't elect her just for that fact. It should be her policies that make her electable, not her gender. That said, this is democrats we're talking about lol. Buuut, of the woman running I think she's one of the lesser notable (Warren, Harris, and Gabbard are more standouts I think right now).
In defense of her, she does seem serious on at least trying to get corruption out of politics which is already in itself something way better than Hillary. But again, not sure how she will be able to compete with Warren on that one seemed as that's Warren's claim to fame. She also apparently has a dirty history with how she treated her workers and behind doors has a big temper. Not sure how true that is but I've heard it circulating now from multiple people. She's definitely not a frontrunner but still not irrelevant either. She's going to have to really make herself stand out if she wants to keep up.


I was among the people who thought his talking points were stale at times- at points he just flat out didn't answer the question so he could talk about wealth inequality. It's like, we get it Bernie but we want to see some other answers from you too. But there were definitely moments where that shone for him, and he still does have a lot of support. Agreed on how he needs to be more specific with his plans- I don't think his goals are impossible but he will need to be very specific in his methodology of how he is going to get there, because that will be the make-or-break for a lot of people. Until he has that methodology, it will seem like his goals, are in fact, impossible. At least to many.
I'm still wondering how exactly he is going to do. I agree he is going to have a harder time this round than last. And honestly, I don't think progressives will be guaranteed to vote for him either, at least until the playing field narrows. Between him and Hillary, the choice was obvious. But between him and the other candidates now, progressives have the ability to shop around a bit.
I agree his supporters may get him negative press, whether warranted or unwarranted. I remember the critique of "Bernie Bros" and the mess that was. A lot of it I saw was "they only want to vote for Bernie cuz they hate women" which although I bet was true in very extreme cases, I think most of Bernies fans were with him more because of his stances or their dislike for Hillary's stances rather than the simple fact that he was a man. At least among progressive voters he rallied.
Also, I actually didn't know he was agnostic. I thought he was Jewish? Er, not to say Jewish people can't be agnostic but I thought he was a practicing Jew. Agnosticism could hurt him when there's still a religious stronghold in the US. I think atheists (even thought not the same as being agnostic, many people equate the two) are one of the groups that had the most negative reception when polled about who you would not vote for president.
All that said, I think for now he is a definite frontrunner but he is going to have to keep his eyes peeled and be wary because the competition is tough and he will be scrutinized more this time around.


Although I agree to some extent with what you project in where she's have trouble getting support- New England, Bernie/Warren supporters- I think she definitely has a chance. She has skeletons in the closet from prosecution, and she will have to deal with those, but recall that Hillary also had her fair share of blunders too and a dedicated base of haters. Despite that, Hillary did make it pretty far. And Harris, in public, has a great composure unlike Hillary who feels robotic. Having those things going for her plus the black vote is going to help her tremendously and I think she's definitely going to be in it for the long haul.
I admittedly was surprised by her performance too. Before, I thought she was lukewarm and wouldn't be able to compete with Sanders in the debates. In a way I was right, as she seemed to side with him and attack Biden instead, which definitely made her coming out looking a winner. She was smart not to go for Bernie in this early stage. But she definitely showed "I can be presidential and also relatable at once."
That said, you're right- she has a history of flip flopping on issues. She needs to iron that out gracefully and create specific and detailed plans that support her policy. If she does that, I think she will increase her already good following. She has momentum right now. We'll have to see if she rides it successfully or if she gets ripped apart in the next debates like you said. I could see either happening.


Cosigned.


He just seems like a naive child in the face of bigger names and he was trying to use his youth to his advantage without presenting clear policies outside of his gun policy which I don't think would fare well with most Americans. Not really expecting him to make it far.


Yeah, I honestly think her intentions are good and they shine. She's a woman who'd make a good friend or have a long conversation with. But not a woman I want running the nation. I mean, everyone else had "mayor" "senator" etc under their name. She had "author." She has not the experience to be trying to achieve such a lofty goal without knowing fully what the job entails. I commend her for running and I like listening to her thoughts, but she's definitely not fit for office.


I would honestly love to see him debate Trump because among the dems I say last night I'd say he is the most methodical and intellectual. That contrast would be really interesting to watch. I think among online political communities he appears more popular than he will actually be. I just don't see a huge portion of democrats voting for him when he lacks the passion on social issues that liberal democrats are looking for and he's far too left economically for establishment and centrist dems. I honestly think he has a slim to none chance right now, but we'll see if he can pick up his footing.


It definitely went better than expected, although my expectations for dems were very low to begin with lol. As he's incumbent and still has a strong rallying support base I think Trump has a strong chance of re-election, but I can't say for sure how much I believe he will be re-elected until the massive pool of democrats narrows and we see just who exactly he will be up against.
Healthcare coverage for illegal immigrants looked like it may have been a "I'll raise my hand because everyone else is" issue. Biden in particular looked like he was being forced against his will to do it, I doubt that he actually believes that, but I could be wrong.
Watching the other debate tonight will be, hopefully, as interesting as this one. I doubt it since most of the big names were in this one, but I might be surprised.
Thanks for your thoughts on these candidates, I'll post when I watch the other and we can discuss the others as well.
Joe Biden - Agreed. His appeal will waver among up-to-date democrats, but he'll court most of the nominal democrats/defected rebulicans.
And to your point on "focus on plicy, trump is secondary".... lol it's tough to say that when estblaish liberals and social issue democrats will look at you with cold yellow sith eyes if you dare question their "stop trump at all cost, first" mentaillity. That's personally why I #WalkedAway long ago. I liked and still like (though not as much) obama but the democrat party disgust me. But that's just my opinion.

pete butigieg - " I think we're close but not there." "evangelicals will be rounding up numbers".... lol. A lot of relgious people are against homosexuality, but I understand your point. I'm tempted to want to further discuss this.......but I don't want to offend anyone (though it's not like a give a dam if I did since I what only stops me from really roasting people in this forum are the (wonderful) mods and the strike system.....but on topic of gay rights and stuff.......I just feel like now is not the time). But agreed on everything else. I also find it interesting how he's bringing relgion to the fore frunt in democrat circles, he'll defintly get in alot of liberal relgious people for sure. I huge but marginlized base in the democrat pete is speaking too.

bernie sanders - Agreed 100% with your first paragraph.
Exactly. Sanders will need to evolve himself and his camapign if he wants to keep progressives. Because there's only so much "he started talking about first you unlike those bandwagons!" will do if bernie keeps stale. Because other progressives are going to start to say "So what?"...once bernie supporter feel their candiate is threatened, they will predictably start roasting and slandering evryone else and self destructing their own cause. At least the vocal ones.
Yeah, only like the hardcore indepdent vowed soclaist people may get into that gender thing or "bernie or bust". But most bernie people just like him because of his policy. and remmebr, 88% of bernie supporters voted hillary I believe over trump. So most of bernie base are democrats that just co sign on his ideas. they aren't like indepdents who are soclaist (which I was kinda hoping they are) and communist.
Yeah, he's an agnsotic who's jewish by ethnicity. He won't talk about it much, but it's there for those who care. Yeah, he's A fruntrunner (not THEE fruntrnner), but most build himself up or else warren will take him. Bernie's too soft. If I were his supporters, there's much subject ammo to fire away at elizabeth warren.
Actually, if you look at it..(TANGENT ALERT.....TANGENT ALERT)...all of these candiates have baggage while bernie is the most "clean one". If bernie was really ruthless, he'd go and start LAMBASTING EVERYONE, and then come up with solid ways to enact his agenda and speak with power. His ardent loyal base would be screaming to the roof tops if he did that. If people get hurt or people get offended by speaking truth to power at the weak progressive and "corapate dems" then so be it. This is our chance to bring back a movement of want marx dreamed of, and nothing will stop us from doing that. If corapte dem media want to fight us,we'll take them out JUST LIKE WE WILL against evil corpatraions and wall street. We want a world that'll be based on "science" and "human soldarity". No evil captalism that produces greed and corruption among humans. We will create a world order based on the philophiscal spirits of marx. No wars, no poverty. None of that. Everyone will have healthcare, we will have clean enviroment We will slowly but surley get rid of relgion and money, too so we humans can be united on beleif and be "equal". If people need their little relgions, that religon will just be an extension of our philophical beleifs in our world order based on "Human soladarity" (bernie actaully said he wants a world order based on "human solodarity"). lol...... this is probably the physce of ardent deep borrowed bernie supporters. They'll never tell you that in public, but if I said this is the type of things of how Bernie should be and what are world future plans are somehwere in closed dorrs among bernie loyalist...I'd get appaluses. It's why I don't like bernie the most out of all the dem candiates.....but I went on a tangent. Moving on....lol.

Kamala harris - a stretch of a chance I'd say. I just don't see her getting enough white democrat support. It's not only the new englands, she'll struggle on the also colorado, washington state...those democrats will be turned off by her, as well. She defitnly ain't getting...or very votes from democrats in red states. the only places I see gaining prominence are in urban areas like new york, california. Places with high diverstiy. I feel like whites even there will grivatate to her, as she'll captalize on the minority vote as well which is huge in the democratic party. As a matter of fact... I just talked myself itno agreeing with you. She does have a chance, though it will be challenging. loool.
Differnce in hillary case, is hillary had way more of an reputation, has affected way more people thus giving her more support, has more expirence and had a dnc rigging for her. Kamala won't have that advntage. She has more perosnaility than hillary, i'll give you that. We'll see where she goes.

john hicklepooper - lol.

Eric swadell - 100% agreed.

Marienne williamson - Agreed 100%, but i'll actually expound since she's actually interesting.
I want to see her in september otober debates at least. She's interesing. SHE MAY BE one of those candiates who's low polling but just stays in the race till the end like kasich did in 2016. Dude polled at like 5% but just never dropped out. I like hearing her speak and I feel an inner connection/bond when she speaks. Hence why I said she's enchanting.
I looked up her beleifs, and she's some type mystic jew for a lack of better way to phrase it. Really interesting.

Andrew Yang - Agreed. And yang looks like a smart guy, I think he'll adapt and gain attraction. Honestly, I think him and williamson will just be those candiate who stick till the end even if they don't win. Though if he loses, he'll probably support the democrat nominee, though to the inevitable displeasure of a lot of his base because he does have a lot of right wingers vowching for him. He's social libertarian who believes in captaislm but with a strong saftey net. Odd thing to see which is why he gets support from people at odd ends of specturm.

kristen gillibrand -She has a temper? can't say i'm surprised. It's the quiet chipmunk cute looking woman you may have to watch out for, they look innocent but may bite and bite hard.
But she does seem genuine about money in politics.....though at the same time not. She seems a little fake actually. She actually looks like a femnazi. But that's just baseless supscion and projection.

Agreed, hurt guys like yang, biden the most. Even if you back track, you'll just been as a coward who caves to peer pressure. They'd have to go and disavvow from giving illegal immigrants healthcare.....but that'd attract a lot of bad press as well as some democrat suopport.
Really good convo bro. You seem to be a poltically indepdent and compelty undecided voter who's trying his best to study all candiates to make the most well informed vote you can. lol, you have my deepest respect. It's seldom I run into those people online. I'm used to the tribal people who already have their mind set and are bias to their person....though i'll admit I'm probably one of them myself.


spoliers: the big hitters was the debate you watched. The 2nd debate (actaully was the 1st debate...you watched them out of order) you'll watch is going to be not as interesting, for sure. But watch it to stay informed if your principles insist. My mind is bascially made up of who I plan to first ever be voting for so it won't matter to me if I watch debate or not. I only watch the dnc debate for entertainment and to be informed.
 
Last edited:

StoicPhantom

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
355
#35
I am curious to see how Bernie is going to implement his ideals into congress, they seem too grand, his fifteen dollars an hour thing is a small business nightmare, They don't have that kind of money to pay their empolyees, they would have to raise prices and reduce the size of the labor force to cover such a massive pay raise, higher prices means less goods will be bought and sold, low sales leading to small businesses having to let people go to stay afloat,
You could make the argument that businesses that can't afford to pay their workers a living wage, don't deserve to be in business. I don't mean that in a moral sense, but if you have to rely on underpaying your workers, you probably wouldn't be successful under normal conditions(meaning you don't have the ability to entice enough customers). And I also think this line of thinking forgets that people are more inclined to spend money when they actually have money. People having more in their pocket on the whole, might mean more people would be willing to spend more at these small businesses, as opposed to giant chains. Or not, but that would just mean these small businesses just can't compete on their own merits.

I think rather than the minimum wage, mega corporations are the bigger threat. It doesn't matter how little you pay your workers, if multi-nationals with deep coffers can afford to undercut you at every turn. Wages have been stagnant since the 80s. It's not the minimum wage that's closing local businesses, it's Amazon and Walmart.

I was among the people who thought his talking points were stale at times- at points he just flat out didn't answer the question so he could talk about wealth inequality. It's like, we get it Bernie but we want to see some other answers from you too. But there were definitely moments where that shone for him, and he still does have a lot of support. Agreed on how he needs to be more specific with his plans- I don't think his goals are impossible but he will need to be very specific in his methodology of how he is going to get there, because that will be the make-or-break for a lot of people. Until he has that methodology, it will seem like his goals, are in fact, impossible. At least to many.
Don't forget lots of people aren't as educated as you and I in these matters. While it may be frustrating for us to hear the same thing over and over, lots of people may be hearing it for the first time. The goal isn't to convince old voters, but get new ones interested and invested. To do that, repeating the same message far and wide is effective, in the same way advertising is. And in a system where you only get a few minutes to talk about complex issues and ideas, keeping it short and direct is probably the best way to go. It might not be ideal, but we don't have much of a choice, given how the media is structured these days. It also doesn't help when unscrupulous moderators and hosts cut you off when you start making too much sense.

As far as answering questions goes, there were a lot of really dumb questions like "what would you do if abortion were made illegal", among others, making it difficult to answer. If these were fair questions, then it would be good to have a direct answer, but a lot of these are littered with "gotchas" and/or questions designed to produce a misleading soundbyte/headline.

Also, I actually didn't know he was agnostic. I thought he was Jewish?
I'm fairly certain he's ethnically Jewish, but doesn't hold any religious beliefs. He's been very careful about dodging any questions in that regard.

As far as keeping his base goes, I think his coalition will remain the same as it usually does. Much like the failures of the Democrats constantly trying to chase the moderate Republican unicorn, I think true Progressives and Bernie supporters will prefer the original over all the bandwagoners and copycats. While I have no doubt Warren has the same principles, Bernie just comes off as more genuine and Warren can be a little wishy-washy at times, like when she said she would be open to taking corporate money in the general on The Young Turks. While I think she sincerely believes she can use that to push progressive policies, I feel like she is a little naive about how much that will influence and how that will come off to Progressives.

I think the goal is to bring newcomers into the political realm, in order to combat a system rigged against him, rather than try to convince older voters. Everyone currently in the system pretty much has their lines drawn, the issue is about getting more voters engaged and willing to come out and vote.
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
51
Location
Orlando, Florida
#36
Joe Biden - Agreed. His appeal will waver among up-to-date democrats, but he'll court most of the nominal democrats/defected rebulicans.
And to your point on "focus on plicy, trump is secondary".... lol it's tough to say that when estblaish liberals and social issue democrats will look at you with cold yellow sith eyes if you dare question their "stop trump at all cost, first" mentaillity. That's personally why I #WalkedAway long ago. I liked and still like (though not as much) obama but the democrat party disgust me. But that's just my opinion.
I feel you. Maybe when I was 14 I would have considered myself a democrat but no longer, I've divorced myself from political parties because of their tribal nature. I think when Trump was elected he was put up as this big "Voldemort" of a bad guy but really what needs to be talked and addressed are long term structural issues in America. "Defeat Trump with any means possible" is not a goal I want to get behind. I don't like Trump and I think he's... unintelligent, to say the absolute least. But I don't want to vote for someone just because "they can beat Trump." I want someone with integrity, solid outlined plans, and an understanding of the mess we're in both on a domestic and global scale and how to fix it. It's one of the reasons foreign policy is at the top of my "important issues" list. I don't want someone putting us any further down the slew of problems we have just because their name isn't Donald Trump.

pete butigieg - " I think we're close but not there." "evangelicals will be rounding up numbers".... lol. A lot of relgious people are against homosexuality, but I understand your point. I'm tempted to want to further discuss this.......but I don't want to offend anyone (though it's not like a give a dam if I did since I what only stops me from really roasting people in this forum are the (wonderful) mods and the strike system.....but on topic of gay rights and stuff.......I just feel like now is not the time). But agreed on everything else. I also find it interesting how he's bringing relgion to the fore frunt in democrat circles, he'll defintly get in alot of liberal relgious people for sure. I huge but marginlized base in the democrat pete is speaking too.
I don't see what the problem in discussing gay rights here is so long as it relates to the election and the candidates in some way. In this case, it's topical. I know that it's more than just evangelicals who oppose or are at least uncomfortable with gay rights/a gay president but I don't see any other prominent groups particularly rallying people against him simply because of that fact. I feel like many religions are trying to court people with a message of acceptance or at the very least tolerance nowadays. It would be a bad look to do otherwise, but evangelicals have been doing unpopular things for a while now so won't really care about looking bad to others. Silent discomfort based on the fact he's gay which might bring down numbers at the polls? That I can see, but I'm not sure if any other groups would be mobilizing. Regardless, it will be something that puts him at a disadvantage compared to other candidates for sure.

bernie sanders - Agreed 100% with your first paragraph.
Exactly. Sanders will need to evolve himself and his camapign if he wants to keep progressives. Because there's only so much "he started talking about first you unlike those bandwagons!" will do if bernie keeps stale. Because other progressives are going to start to say "So what?"...once bernie supporter feel their candiate is threatened, they will predictably start roasting and slandering evryone else and self destructing their own cause. At least the vocal ones.
Yeah, only like the hardcore indepdent vowed soclaist people may get into that gender thing or "bernie or bust". But most bernie people just like him because of his policy. and remmebr, 88% of bernie supporters voted hillary I believe over trump. So most of bernie base are democrats that just co sign on his ideas. they aren't like indepdents who are soclaist (which I was kinda hoping they are) and communist.
Yeah, he's an agnsotic who's jewish by ethnicity. He won't talk about it much, but it's there for those who care. Yeah, he's A fruntrunner (not THEE fruntrnner), but most build himself up or else warren will take him. Bernie's too soft. If I were his supporters, there's much subject ammo to fire away at elizabeth warren.
Actually, if you look at it..(TANGENT ALERT.....TANGENT ALERT)...all of these candiates have baggage while bernie is the most "clean one". If bernie was really ruthless, he'd go and start LAMBASTING EVERYONE, and then come up with solid ways to enact his agenda and speak with power. His ardent loyal base would be screaming to the roof tops if he did that. If people get hurt or people get offended by speaking truth to power at the weak progressive and "corapate dems" then so be it. This is our chance to bring back a movement of want marx dreamed of, and nothing will stop us from doing that. If corapte dem media want to fight us,we'll take them out JUST LIKE WE WILL against evil corpatraions and wall street. We want a world that'll be based on "science" and "human soldarity". No evil captalism that produces greed and corruption among humans. We will create a world order based on the philophiscal spirits of marx. No wars, no poverty. None of that. Everyone will have healthcare, we will have clean enviroment We will slowly but surley get rid of relgion and money, too so we humans can be united on beleif and be "equal". If people need their little relgions, that religon will just be an extension of our philophical beleifs in our world order based on "Human soladarity" (bernie actaully said he wants a world order based on "human solodarity"). lol...... this is probably the physce of ardent deep borrowed bernie supporters. They'll never tell you that in public, but if I said this is the type of things of how Bernie should be and what are world future plans are somehwere in closed dorrs among bernie loyalist...I'd get appaluses. It's why I don't like bernie the most out of all the dem candiates.....but I went on a tangent. Moving on....lol.
I wonder, how many of that 88% of voters you mentioned were enthusiastic to vote for Hillary and how many were dragged kicking and screaming? I guess in the end a vote is a vote, but it would be interesting to see that breakdown.
I don't recall hearing anything dirty about Bernie's history, I thiiink maybe one small thing about him saying something about marriage decades ago that he has since rescinded. It would be cool to see him fact check untrue claims that have to do with voting records or past incidents let's say. But then again, I think that should be done period. I don't even think it's offensive to bring something up from the past if it's still relevant to today- it's simply bringing attention to something alarming or trying to seek clarity on a contradiction.
What was the context in which he said he wanted a world order based on human solidarity? An interview, a speech, writing, etc? I'd be interested in hearing exactly what he meant by that. I think human solidarity sounds like something reasonable on the surface although the words "world order" before something have the potential to make anything sound weird.

Kamala harris - a stretch of a chance I'd say. I just don't see her getting enough white democrat support. It's not only the new englands, she'll struggle on the also colorado, washington state...those democrats will be turned off by her, as well. She defitnly ain't getting...or very votes from democrats in red states. the only places I see gaining prominence are in urban areas like new york, california. Places with high diverstiy. I feel like whites even there will grivatate to her, as she'll captalize on the minority vote as well which is huge in the democratic party. As a matter of fact... I just talked myself itno agreeing with you. She does have a chance, though it will be challenging. loool.
Differnce in hillary case, is hillary had way more of an reputation, has affected way more people thus giving her more support, has more expirence and had a dnc rigging for her. Kamala won't have that advntage. She has more perosnaility than hillary, i'll give you that. We'll see where she goes.
Honestly, with the way she is being portrayed in media like CNN, NBC, etc. and news sites being very positive (even before the debate) and prominent too, I'm wondering how much the DNC is behind her to be "the one." Hillary herself gave an endorsement for Kamala already months ago. I wouldn't be surprised if she was the one the DNC chose to "try and push further as hard as they could."
I know for sure the DNC are not in favor of Bernie. Warren I'm not too sure they'd get behind either. Maybe Booker. But the only other person I see for the "DNC loves me most" position is Biden. This is all a hunch right now, but it's something I'll be keeping an eye out for as the process continues.

john hicklepooper - lol.

Eric swadell - 100% agreed.

Marienne williamson - Agreed 100%, but i'll actually expound since she's actually interesting.
I want to see her in september otober debates at least. She's interesing. SHE MAY BE one of those candiates who's low polling but just stays in the race till the end like kasich did in 2016. Dude polled at like 5% but just never dropped out. I like hearing her speak and I feel an inner connection/bond when she speaks. Hence why I said she's enchanting.
I looked up her beleifs, and she's some type mystic jew for a lack of better way to phrase it. Really interesting.
In Marianne's case I do hope she sticks around to the end too. In a sea of boring candidates she at least make things more entertaining for people who want to stay informed, and not in a demagogue way either.

Andrew Yang - Agreed. And yang looks like a smart guy, I think he'll adapt and gain attraction. Honestly, I think him and williamson will just be those candiate who stick till the end even if they don't win. Though if he loses, he'll probably support the democrat nominee, though to the inevitable displeasure of a lot of his base because he does have a lot of right wingers vowching for him. He's social libertarian who believes in captaislm but with a strong saftey net. Odd thing to see which is why he gets support from people at odd ends of specturm.
I heard he's pretty isolationist, which tends to attract right wingers as well. I know that's something that attracted some folks to Trump instead of Hillary, and it's also the reason Gabbard is getting a lot of right-wingers on board with her too. I want to see him talk more. He is polite which I like, but unfortunately in the circus of politics it isn't doing him favors of speaking his ideas where everyone is trying to scream over everyone else.

kristen gillibrand -She has a temper? can't say i'm surprised. It's the quiet chipmunk cute looking woman you may have to watch out for, they look innocent but may bite and bite hard.
But she does seem genuine about money in politics.....though at the same time not. She seems a little fake actually. She actually looks like a femnazi. But that's just baseless supscion and projection.
Appearance is important for presidential candidates for sure. In Gillibrand's case, I think she looks like an organized, normal person. There are a few candidates that look non-Presidential but I think she's ok. Klobuchar though... I'll mention that when I post about the other 10 later but she was giving some really weird faces in her debate. Also, I guess the only way to tell how serious she is about money in politics is to look at her history and proposals. But honestly I don't think she's bring it up so much if she wasnt serious about it.

, hurt guys like yang, biden the most. Even if you back track, you'll just been as a coward who caves to peer pressure. They'd have to go and disavvow from giving illegal immigrants healthcare.....but that'd attract a lot of bad press as well as some democrat suopport.
Really good convo bro. You seem to be a poltically indepdent and compelty undecided voter who's trying his best to study all candiates to make the most well informed vote you can. lol, you have my deepest respect. It's seldom I run into those people online. I'm used to the tribal people who already have their mind set and are bias to their person....though i'll admit I'm probably one of them myself.
spoliers: the big hitters was the debate you watched. The 2nd debate (actaully was the 1st debate...you watched them out of order) you'll watch is going to be not as interesting, for sure. But watch it to stay informed if your principles insist. My mind is bascially made up of who I plan to first ever be voting for so it won't matter to me if I watch debate or not. I only watch the dnc debate for entertainment and to be informed.
Yeah, people usually dislike someone in politics who is wishy-washy and doesn't stand firm for what they believe. Myself included. I want to make sure these candidates aren't flopping around without a clear position. Hillary and Trump seemed to do that a lot last election which was really infuriating because the vote coming down to two liars is not how our election should work.
And yes agreed, good conversation. Honestly at this point in the game especially I think it's good to keep an open mind and an open ear to see what the candidates are bringing forward and what their histories and proposals are. In the primary seasons you get to choose who you think is best, to a certain extent, and promote them rather than having to pick between two, so I intend to do that as best I can. I have no loyalties to any party- I'm picking who I want purely based on my best judgment and who they are and what they bring forward.
Also, I watched the other debates, so I'll be making a post about those candidates next. Either today (kinda busy, so it's a maybe) or tomorrow.


Don't forget lots of people aren't as educated as you and I in these matters. While it may be frustrating for us to hear the same thing over and over, lots of people may be hearing it for the first time. The goal isn't to convince old voters, but get new ones interested and invested. To do that, repeating the same message far and wide is effective, in the same way advertising is. And in a system where you only get a few minutes to talk about complex issues and ideas, keeping it short and direct is probably the best way to go. It might not be ideal, but we don't have much of a choice, given how the media is structured these days. It also doesn't help when unscrupulous moderators and hosts cut you off when you start making too much sense.

As far as answering questions goes, there were a lot of really dumb questions like "what would you do if abortion were made illegal", among others, making it difficult to answer. If these were fair questions, then it would be good to have a direct answer, but a lot of these are littered with "gotchas" and/or questions designed to produce a misleading soundbyte/headline.
Yes, you're absolutely right. In Bernie's case, I think it's frustrating because he's a familiar face with many people who already know he's about, so to them it may seem very elementary. But true- it's very hard to get specific things out in a debate format like that. Honestly I wish the debates were structured different and focused on examining topics in depth. Like for example, one debate solely about healthcare. One debate solely about Immigration. Etc. That would allow the candidates to get further in depth about the topics they are addressing. And yeah, some of those questions were too hypothetical. I suppose these debates are sort of a "preliminary" of sorta, kinda get the candidates introduced to everyone, but I hope they become a little less chaotic as time goes on.

I'm fairly certain he's ethnically Jewish, but doesn't hold any religious beliefs. He's been very careful about dodging any questions in that regard.

As far as keeping his base goes, I think his coalition will remain the same as it usually does. Much like the failures of the Democrats constantly trying to chase the moderate Republican unicorn, I think true Progressives and Bernie supporters will prefer the original over all the bandwagoners and copycats. While I have no doubt Warren has the same principles, Bernie just comes off as more genuine and Warren can be a little wishy-washy at times, like when she said she would be open to taking corporate money in the general on The Young Turks. While I think she sincerely believes she can use that to push progressive policies, I feel like she is a little naive about how much that will influence and how that will come off to Progressives.

I think the goal is to bring newcomers into the political realm, in order to combat a system rigged against him, rather than try to convince older voters. Everyone currently in the system pretty much has their lines drawn, the issue is about getting more voters engaged and willing to come out and vote.
Ah I see. Well then I suppose he's doing a good job, because I haven't heard anything of his agnosticism before this thread.
That strategy certainly worked for him last time, as he amassed a huge fan base that was sick of corporate dems.
I am curious- who do you think he will look toward in VP picks? I hear a lot of people wanting a Bernie/Gabbard or Bernie/Warren, but as they are both running I'm not sure how far they will make it. I think at this point Gabbard won't be one of the ones making it to the end, but Warren has potential to make it pretty far. What kind of VP do you think he should go for?
 

J.I.L

Banned via Administration
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
327
#37
I feel you. Maybe when I was 14 I would have considered myself a democrat but no longer, I've divorced myself from political parties because of their tribal nature. I think when Trump was elected he was put up as this big "Voldemort" of a bad guy but really what needs to be talked and addressed are long term structural issues in America. "Defeat Trump with any means possible" is not a goal I want to get behind. I don't like Trump and I think he's... unintelligent, to say the absolute least. But I don't want to vote for someone just because "they can beat Trump." I want someone with integrity, solid outlined plans, and an understanding of the mess we're in both on a domestic and global scale and how to fix it. It's one of the reasons foreign policy is at the top of my "important issues" list. I don't want someone putting us any further down the slew of problems we have just because their name isn't Donald Trump.


I don't see what the problem in discussing gay rights here is so long as it relates to the election and the candidates in some way. In this case, it's topical. I know that it's more than just evangelicals who oppose or are at least uncomfortable with gay rights/a gay president but I don't see any other prominent groups particularly rallying people against him simply because of that fact. I feel like many religions are trying to court people with a message of acceptance or at the very least tolerance nowadays. It would be a bad look to do otherwise, but evangelicals have been doing unpopular things for a while now so won't really care about looking bad to others. Silent discomfort based on the fact he's gay which might bring down numbers at the polls? That I can see, but I'm not sure if any other groups would be mobilizing. Regardless, it will be something that puts him at a disadvantage compared to other candidates for sure.


I wonder, how many of that 88% of voters you mentioned were enthusiastic to vote for Hillary and how many were dragged kicking and screaming? I guess in the end a vote is a vote, but it would be interesting to see that breakdown.
I don't recall hearing anything dirty about Bernie's history, I thiiink maybe one small thing about him saying something about marriage decades ago that he has since rescinded. It would be cool to see him fact check untrue claims that have to do with voting records or past incidents let's say. But then again, I think that should be done period. I don't even think it's offensive to bring something up from the past if it's still relevant to today- it's simply bringing attention to something alarming or trying to seek clarity on a contradiction.
What was the context in which he said he wanted a world order based on human solidarity? An interview, a speech, writing, etc? I'd be interested in hearing exactly what he meant by that. I think human solidarity sounds like something reasonable on the surface although the words "world order" before something have the potential to make anything sound weird.


Honestly, with the way she is being portrayed in media like CNN, NBC, etc. and news sites being very positive (even before the debate) and prominent too, I'm wondering how much the DNC is behind her to be "the one." Hillary herself gave an endorsement for Kamala already months ago. I wouldn't be surprised if she was the one the DNC chose to "try and push further as hard as they could."
I know for sure the DNC are not in favor of Bernie. Warren I'm not too sure they'd get behind either. Maybe Booker. But the only other person I see for the "DNC loves me most" position is Biden. This is all a hunch right now, but it's something I'll be keeping an eye out for as the process continues.


In Marianne's case I do hope she sticks around to the end too. In a sea of boring candidates she at least make things more entertaining for people who want to stay informed, and not in a demagogue way either.


I heard he's pretty isolationist, which tends to attract right wingers as well. I know that's something that attracted some folks to Trump instead of Hillary, and it's also the reason Gabbard is getting a lot of right-wingers on board with her too. I want to see him talk more. He is polite which I like, but unfortunately in the circus of politics it isn't doing him favors of speaking his ideas where everyone is trying to scream over everyone else.


Appearance is important for presidential candidates for sure. In Gillibrand's case, I think she looks like an organized, normal person. There are a few candidates that look non-Presidential but I think she's ok. Klobuchar though... I'll mention that when I post about the other 10 later but she was giving some really weird faces in her debate. Also, I guess the only way to tell how serious she is about money in politics is to look at her history and proposals. But honestly I don't think she's bring it up so much if she wasnt serious about it.


Yeah, people usually dislike someone in politics who is wishy-washy and doesn't stand firm for what they believe. Myself included. I want to make sure these candidates aren't flopping around without a clear position. Hillary and Trump seemed to do that a lot last election which was really infuriating because the vote coming down to two liars is not how our election should work.
And yes agreed, good conversation. Honestly at this point in the game especially I think it's good to keep an open mind and an open ear to see what the candidates are bringing forward and what their histories and proposals are. In the primary seasons you get to choose who you think is best, to a certain extent, and promote them rather than having to pick between two, so I intend to do that as best I can. I have no loyalties to any party- I'm picking who I want purely based on my best judgment and who they are and what they bring forward.
Also, I watched the other debates, so I'll be making a post about those candidates next. Either today (kinda busy, so it's a maybe) or tomorrow.



Yes, you're absolutely right. In Bernie's case, I think it's frustrating because he's a familiar face with many people who already know he's about, so to them it may seem very elementary. But true- it's very hard to get specific things out in a debate format like that. Honestly I wish the debates were structured different and focused on examining topics in depth. Like for example, one debate solely about healthcare. One debate solely about Immigration. Etc. That would allow the candidates to get further in depth about the topics they are addressing. And yeah, some of those questions were too hypothetical. I suppose these debates are sort of a "preliminary" of sorta, kinda get the candidates introduced to everyone, but I hope they become a little less chaotic as time goes on.


Ah I see. Well then I suppose he's doing a good job, because I haven't heard anything of his agnosticism before this thread.
That strategy certainly worked for him last time, as he amassed a huge fan base that was sick of corporate dems.
I am curious- who do you think he will look toward in VP picks? I hear a lot of people wanting a Bernie/Gabbard or Bernie/Warren, but as they are both running I'm not sure how far they will make it. I think at this point Gabbard won't be one of the ones making it to the end, but Warren has potential to make it pretty far. What kind of VP do you think he should go for?
You see I have to disagree. Trump just has a persona of someone who’s not very sophisticated, but I think trump is very intelligent dude who has some very good instincts and talents. It’s why we have a solid economy, good foreign policy right (making peace with North Korea) and America is doing well in general.


Hit it right on the head. It’ll be more of an Solent discomfort. And religions - a “good one” at least - shouldn’t really change in message due to societal reputation over the years. That just become a harlot religion.

Sanders - yeah good point, and of Bernie gets screwed over in there eyes, that 88% is bound to decrease this time around.
It wasn’t anything that ominous... at least on the surface... he was at John Hopkins making a speech. He basically was implying the world should get to the point where every country and nation are sown together by the morality Bernie thinks is right. “Human solidarity” “share our common humanity”. Humanist type philosophy he hopes the world is all bounded by.
And Bernie doesn’t have that much dirt (apart from his ties to like believing soviet russia isn’t that bad and thinking bread lines are good... clips of young radical soclaist bernie), but he hasn’t really gotten much done, either. He will get exposed on that. It won’t detour his base that much, but it won’t get existing Democrat to join his side. A socialist who can’t get stuff done who just talks big and mighty... it’ll turn off Democrats outside his camp. Plus he’ll get exposed because he’s not an even an democrat - he’s an independent. Loyal democrats won’t except him.
Plus if Bernie ideas were so good, why aren’t people immigrating to the utopia Vermont? Or trying to go to eruope to live since Nordic countries are far superior to America. It’s just bunch of hog wash from sanders supporters. Poor people who are jealous and envious of the rich is what I get from sanders supporters. Also as you can see, that stoic phantom guy, someone I do not know from Adam - and who is a Bernie supporter, seems to have already put me on block list before I even spoke to him. Lol. Someone got their feelings hurt on my tirade against Bernie.

Harris - Her, Pete and Biden are probably what establishment lib media would wholeheartedly get behind. Everyone either they don’t like or don’t think could win an national election.

Marriane Williamson - agreed.

Kristen gillibrand - yeah. Look at her history. I’m sure she’s going to be “clean” of having pacs major donors in her political life. Lol. Exactly why don’t think she’s trustworthy.

Andrew yang - Yeah, most libertarian are isolationist. And he doesn’t get into identity politics nor focus on bashing the president at all.
Same thing with tulsi, though if any right wingers are serious about voting for her just because her stance on wars are either astronomically stupid, not right wingers or just 4chan trolls who like her because of looks. Wouldn’t surprise me if most prior. Right wingers can be easily manipulated. Scream: “ NO MORE WARS FOR ISREAL. NEO CON WAR HAWKS! ZIONIST DEEP STATE! COMMIE CORPARATE JEWS! *** IDENTITY POLITICS. WHITE MAN IS DYING! EVIL AMERICAN EMPIRE!” Say these things they’ll back you wholeheartedly. Easy to deceive them.

True. Staying consistent is key. My mind is open but I’m not expecting any good. Democrats have gone astray. I’m not even a rebulican either. I’m an independent who supports the president and vice. I too hold no loyalties to party.
 

StoicPhantom

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
355
#38
Yes, you're absolutely right. In Bernie's case, I think it's frustrating because he's a familiar face with many people who already know he's about, so to them it may seem very elementary. But true- it's very hard to get specific things out in a debate format like that. Honestly I wish the debates were structured different and focused on examining topics in depth. Like for example, one debate solely about healthcare. One debate solely about Immigration. Etc. That would allow the candidates to get further in depth about the topics they are addressing. And yeah, some of those questions were too hypothetical. I suppose these debates are sort of a "preliminary" of sorta, kinda get the candidates introduced to everyone, but I hope they become a little less chaotic as time goes on.
I wholeheartedly agree with this, but unfortunately profit comes first and foremost, and most people don't seem to have the desire or attention span to sit through or try to understand complex debates. That's likely why things are structured the way they are, and that most likely won't change until people change and become more responsible in regards to their future. At the very least, the highlights of these debates might spark some interest and get some people to do some independent research into various issues and candidates' take on them.

And yeah, it does seem elementary, but at the end of the day, nearly all of these issues have roots going back to wealth inequality and the ultra wealthy. You can have all the meticulously detailed plans you want, but if you can't pass them, there's pretty much no point. Not to say that having well thought out plans is a bad thing, quite the opposite, but the issue isn't really that we don't have plans, but that we're prevented from passing them. As things currently stand, a few have acquired so much wealth that they literally bought out the entire system. Voters tend to be on board with all of the current trending plans, like Medicare for all, but it's congress that doesn't even begin to attempt to vote on them, let alone implement them. None of these things were even in the national conversation prior to 2016.

What Bernie did was bring these issues to light, and put concepts like free college or healthcare in the mainstream. And they've been gaining voter approval ever since. However, all of these ideas steps on the toes of those who benefit from the current system. People who have tremendous influence over politics and the like, and have been actively trying to shut these movements down. As Bernie has stated, this is not something he can fix alone, and requires everyone to get involved. However, it seems like a lot of people are trying to prop him up as a messiah of sorts, and believe he will lead the People's Party and crush the two party system. That's not really possible, as not only is the system rigged to prevent third parties, but our government is structured to prevent a single individual from having that kind of power.

So before we can go about doing anything, we need to hammer into people's heads that they need to be the ones to get up and do something. The only thing that can stand up to that kind of power, is a united voter front, akin to other movements like the Civil Rights movement. That's why he continues to harp on about wealth inequality, because he can't do this by himself, when his peers are incentivized to oppose him.

Now he could be better about articulating why wealth inequality and taking power from the ultra rich is important and the first step in implementing any plans, how taxing the rich weakens their power while putting more money back into circulation, and that taxes themselves are less about directly funding these plans, and more about breaking the corporate stranglehold on government, by limiting their ability to bribe congress. Hopefully, he'll work on that.
Ah I see. Well then I suppose he's doing a good job, because I haven't heard anything of his agnosticism before this thread.
I don't mean to imply I have objective evidence on this, I meant more that my personal take on this is that he is agnostic. Like this article for instance, chronicles some of his statements on the matter. It seems to me he won't commit on whether he does or doesn't have faith, preferring to highlight the common theme of being a good person in all these religions. Now you could say he just doesn't want to frame things in any particular religion's lens, thereby indirectly propping up that religion, or you could say this is a cynical ploy, due to the general consensus being you need to have some kind of faith to be successful in American politics, to mislead people into thinking he is religious, without outright admitting it.

I personally believe it's that he's a true agnostic. He doesn't have strong religious leanings, but doesn't dismiss it outright or want to deny other people's faith, as opposed to Atheism.

I am curious- who do you think he will look toward in VP picks? I hear a lot of people wanting a Bernie/Gabbard or Bernie/Warren, but as they are both running I'm not sure how far they will make it. I think at this point Gabbard won't be one of the ones making it to the end, but Warren has potential to make it pretty far. What kind of VP do you think he should go for?
I legitimately have no idea what he looks for. His 2016 pick wasn't someone I knew or heard of and haven't since. I get the feeling his staff pushes him on things like this, because it often feels like he's not very adept when it comes to things like optics and organization. I fee like he's more of a policy and engineering type, not a social and team player type, so I wouldn't be surprised if his staff is what makes these decisions.

Despite Gabbard being lumped in with the rest of the Progressives, I never got the feeling like she and Bernie really collaborate or work together behind the scenes. I'm not sure she is part of his "group" so to speak, in the same way Ro Khanna and AOC would be. So I don't know that she would really be considered. As far as Warren goes, that would be a safe bet, given they're long time friends with similar views, but I would agree that it would be a little awkward to try to make a strong rival your VP pick. It seems to me the establishment and Third Way types are finally reading the writing on the wall, in regards to the voters current feelings, and are low key trying to push Warren. Likely because they believe she will be easier to mold and influence. If this continues, not only will she make it far, but she might actually become the nominee, with blessings from both sides. So I think it would be very difficult to make her his VP.

As for what I think he should pick, I think that Progressives are very few, so those who currently hold office should stay there, so they can maintain as much influence as possible. It's difficult to get new ones in, so we need to keep as many remaining ones in as possible. So in that regard, I think he should look towards members of the Progressive community that both have some name recognition and experience working politics, like campaign staff or committee members, but don't currently hold office. Maybe people similar to those like Nina Turner and other big names among Progressives, but I don't know enough about these individuals to give specific endorsements.

I think overall, sincerity and genuineness is going to be very important. There are very few that have a record of consistency even remotely close to Bernie's level, and I don't think the VP needs to be as "pure" as the President, but we need to not do things like "appeasement" candidates for the establishment, similar to how Obama made Hilary his Secretary of State to appease her supporters. I think faith in politicians was already incredibly low, and Obama really did a number on people who got excited over the prospect of change. As I stated before, the most important thing is to get people invested and energized to come out and vote, because Republicans, Donald Trump, and the establishment in general win in low turnout situations. The less reasons you can give an already very jaded and cynical voter base to doubt, the better.

So while I can't give any specific names, I think this decision needs to be made with the criteria listed above. Bernie absolutely has the potential to easily crush any opposition, it's just that his base is an eclectic mishmash of Progressives, Independents, and voters with very different outlooks and reasons for voting for him, that it can be difficult to get everyone to turnout in enough numbers to not force a tie or allow any rigging to affect the end results. I feel like the battle isn't really against anyone one candidate, but the laziness and jadedness of the voters themselves. I mean just think of what could have happened if all the Independents that supported him, swallowed their pride and temporarily changed their affiliation to Democrat in closed primary states.

The fact that the only rust belt state that didn't have a closed primary, Michigan, was the state he completely blew out Hilary, despite the polls saying the complete opposite, should go to show how much things like that skewed the overall results. That's why we need as many people as possible to be involved, so we can overcome things like that.



Also as you can see, that stoic phantom guy, someone I do not know from Adam - and who is a Bernie supporter, seems to have already put me on block list before I even spoke to him. Lol. Someone got their feelings hurt on my tirade against Bernie.
No? Why would you even assume that? I didn't pay much attention to your "tirade", because a lot of it is already debunked Red Scare propaganda type stuff, and because of all the posts I've seen on this site, yours is by far the most difficult to read. Bernie's not Marxist, Communist, or a fan of the Soviet Union. He proclaims himself to be a Democratic Socialist, but most experts say his views are more inline with a Social Democrat, which puts him inline with most of the rest of the first world. Whatever you were going on about was complete nonsense.

Please don't randomly assume stuff about a poster who never even interacted with you.

And Bernie doesn’t have that much dirt (apart from his ties to like believing soviet russia isn’t that bad and thinking bread lines are good... clips of young radical soclaist bernie), but he hasn’t really gotten much done, either. He will get exposed on that. It won’t detour his base that much, but it won’t get existing Democrat to join his side. A socialist who can’t get stuff done who just talks big and mighty... it’ll turn off Democrats outside his camp. Plus he’ll get exposed because he’s not an even an democrat - he’s an independent. Loyal democrats won’t except him.
He "hasn't gotten anything done" because the policies he's proposing are in direct confrontation with the rich and powerful. Despite arguing that the Iraq War was going to be a major disaster, his pleas fell on deaf ears, because Cheney and Co. needed their oil money. Lo and behold, it did become a disaster and every Democratic politician associated with that decision, has been trying to distance themselves from it, and put the blame solely on the Republicans.

You can't "get anything done" when your peers are actively working against you, because their own personal profit is more important, than whether or not something is sensible or helpful.


Plus if Bernie ideas were so good, why aren’t people immigrating to the utopia Vermont? Or trying to go to eruope to live since Nordic countries are far superior to America. It’s just bunch of hog wash from sanders supporters.
How about because their friends, families, the culture and social norms they grew up with, are all where they currently live? People don't look at a list of pros and cons of each country and move to the one with the most pros and least cons. That would mean moving to a country where nobody knows you, you don't know the culture, don't know how to navigate social situations, has a diet you may not like, and might not even speak the same language as you. Most people prefer to live in the country they grew up in. Even if said country has a lot of issues that need addressing.

It is also not entirely impossible to try to improve the country you live in.

Poor people who are jealous and envious of the rich is what I get from sanders supporters.
Oh boy, don't tell me you're a fellow poor person, that has a strange need to constantly shill for the rich. People don't need a $10,000 coffee table they can't set anything on, for fear of scratching the surface. They need healthcare, education, jobs, a roof over their heads, food to eat, etc. Things they can't get because some people need a swimming pool in their swimming pool, before handing off their fortune to idiot kids, who then blow it all on failed business ventures/decisions, because nepotism is cancer.

"hurr you're just jealous" is an incredibly juvenile way of dismissing things. Nobody's jealous of those clowns, not when you can actually do something productive, instead of just mindlessly hoarding material wealth. People are angry, because the trillions of dollars in offshore tax havens aren't circulating back into the economy, which causes problems for the rest of us. There is zero point in desiring more wealth than you could possibly spend in several lifetimes, especially when that deprives others of basic necessities.
 

J.I.L

Banned via Administration
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
327
#39
I wholeheartedly agree with this, but unfortunately profit comes first and foremost, and most people don't seem to have the desire or attention span to sit through or try to understand complex debates. That's likely why things are structured the way they are, and that most likely won't change until people change and become more responsible in regards to their future. At the very least, the highlights of these debates might spark some interest and get some people to do some independent research into various issues and candidates' take on them.

And yeah, it does seem elementary, but at the end of the day, nearly all of these issues have roots going back to wealth inequality and the ultra wealthy. You can have all the meticulously detailed plans you want, but if you can't pass them, there's pretty much no point. Not to say that having well thought out plans is a bad thing, quite the opposite, but the issue isn't really that we don't have plans, but that we're prevented from passing them. As things currently stand, a few have acquired so much wealth that they literally bought out the entire system. Voters tend to be on board with all of the current trending plans, like Medicare for all, but it's congress that doesn't even begin to attempt to vote on them, let alone implement them. None of these things were even in the national conversation prior to 2016.

What Bernie did was bring these issues to light, and put concepts like free college or healthcare in the mainstream. And they've been gaining voter approval ever since. However, all of these ideas steps on the toes of those who benefit from the current system. People who have tremendous influence over politics and the like, and have been actively trying to shut these movements down. As Bernie has stated, this is not something he can fix alone, and requires everyone to get involved. However, it seems like a lot of people are trying to prop him up as a messiah of sorts, and believe he will lead the People's Party and crush the two party system. That's not really possible, as not only is the system rigged to prevent third parties, but our government is structured to prevent a single individual from having that kind of power.

So before we can go about doing anything, we need to hammer into people's heads that they need to be the ones to get up and do something. The only thing that can stand up to that kind of power, is a united voter front, akin to other movements like the Civil Rights movement. That's why he continues to harp on about wealth inequality, because he can't do this by himself, when his peers are incentivized to oppose him.

Now he could be better about articulating why wealth inequality and taking power from the ultra rich is important and the first step in implementing any plans, how taxing the rich weakens their power while putting more money back into circulation, and that taxes themselves are less about directly funding these plans, and more about breaking the corporate stranglehold on government, by limiting their ability to bribe congress. Hopefully, he'll work on that.

I don't mean to imply I have objective evidence on this, I meant more that my personal take on this is that he is agnostic. Like this article for instance, chronicles some of his statements on the matter. It seems to me he won't commit on whether he does or doesn't have faith, preferring to highlight the common theme of being a good person in all these religions. Now you could say he just doesn't want to frame things in any particular religion's lens, thereby indirectly propping up that religion, or you could say this is a cynical ploy, due to the general consensus being you need to have some kind of faith to be successful in American politics, to mislead people into thinking he is religious, without outright admitting it.

I personally believe it's that he's a true agnostic. He doesn't have strong religious leanings, but doesn't dismiss it outright or want to deny other people's faith, as opposed to Atheism.


I legitimately have no idea what he looks for. His 2016 pick wasn't someone I knew or heard of and haven't since. I get the feeling his staff pushes him on things like this, because it often feels like he's not very adept when it comes to things like optics and organization. I fee like he's more of a policy and engineering type, not a social and team player type, so I wouldn't be surprised if his staff is what makes these decisions.

Despite Gabbard being lumped in with the rest of the Progressives, I never got the feeling like she and Bernie really collaborate or work together behind the scenes. I'm not sure she is part of his "group" so to speak, in the same way Ro Khanna and AOC would be. So I don't know that she would really be considered. As far as Warren goes, that would be a safe bet, given they're long time friends with similar views, but I would agree that it would be a little awkward to try to make a strong rival your VP pick. It seems to me the establishment and Third Way types are finally reading the writing on the wall, in regards to the voters current feelings, and are low key trying to push Warren. Likely because they believe she will be easier to mold and influence. If this continues, not only will she make it far, but she might actually become the nominee, with blessings from both sides. So I think it would be very difficult to make her his VP.

As for what I think he should pick, I think that Progressives are very few, so those who currently hold office should stay there, so they can maintain as much influence as possible. It's difficult to get new ones in, so we need to keep as many remaining ones in as possible. So in that regard, I think he should look towards members of the Progressive community that both have some name recognition and experience working politics, like campaign staff or committee members, but don't currently hold office. Maybe people similar to those like Nina Turner and other big names among Progressives, but I don't know enough about these individuals to give specific endorsements.

I think overall, sincerity and genuineness is going to be very important. There are very few that have a record of consistency even remotely close to Bernie's level, and I don't think the VP needs to be as "pure" as the President, but we need to not do things like "appeasement" candidates for the establishment, similar to how Obama made Hilary his Secretary of State to appease her supporters. I think faith in politicians was already incredibly low, and Obama really did a number on people who got excited over the prospect of change. As I stated before, the most important thing is to get people invested and energized to come out and vote, because Republicans, Donald Trump, and the establishment in general win in low turnout situations. The less reasons you can give an already very jaded and cynical voter base to doubt, the better.

So while I can't give any specific names, I think this decision needs to be made with the criteria listed above. Bernie absolutely has the potential to easily crush any opposition, it's just that his base is an eclectic mishmash of Progressives, Independents, and voters with very different outlooks and reasons for voting for him, that it can be difficult to get everyone to turnout in enough numbers to not force a tie or allow any rigging to affect the end results. I feel like the battle isn't really against anyone one candidate, but the laziness and jadedness of the voters themselves. I mean just think of what could have happened if all the Independents that supported him, swallowed their pride and temporarily changed their affiliation to Democrat in closed primary states.

The fact that the only rust belt state that didn't have a closed primary, Michigan, was the state he completely blew out Hilary, despite the polls saying the complete opposite, should go to show how much things like that skewed the overall results. That's why we need as many people as possible to be involved, so we can overcome things like that.




No? Why would you even assume that? I didn't pay much attention to your "tirade", because a lot of it is already debunked Red Scare propaganda type stuff, and because of all the posts I've seen on this site, yours is by far the most difficult to read. Bernie's not Marxist, Communist, or a fan of the Soviet Union. He proclaims himself to be a Democratic Socialist, but most experts say his views are more inline with a Social Democrat, which puts him inline with most of the rest of the first world. Whatever you were going on about was complete nonsense.

Please don't randomly assume stuff about a poster who never even interacted with you.


He "hasn't gotten anything done" because the policies he's proposing are in direct confrontation with the rich and powerful. Despite arguing that the Iraq War was going to be a major disaster, his pleas fell on deaf ears, because Cheney and Co. needed their oil money. Lo and behold, it did become a disaster and every Democratic politician associated with that decision, has been trying to distance themselves from it, and put the blame solely on the Republicans.

You can't "get anything done" when your peers are actively working against you, because their own personal profit is more important, than whether or not something is sensible or helpful.



How about because their friends, families, the culture and social norms they grew up with, are all where they currently live? People don't look at a list of pros and cons of each country and move to the one with the most pros and least cons. That would mean moving to a country where nobody knows you, you don't know the culture, don't know how to navigate social situations, has a diet you may not like, and might not even speak the same language as you. Most people prefer to live in the country they grew up in. Even if said country has a lot of issues that need addressing.

It is also not entirely impossible to try to improve the country you live in.


Oh boy, don't tell me you're a fellow poor person, that has a strange need to constantly shill for the rich. People don't need a $10,000 coffee table they can't set anything on, for fear of scratching the surface. They need healthcare, education, jobs, a roof over their heads, food to eat, etc. Things they can't get because some people need a swimming pool in their swimming pool, before handing off their fortune to idiot kids, who then blow it all on failed business ventures/decisions, because nepotism is cancer.

"hurr you're just jealous" is an incredibly juvenile way of dismissing things. Nobody's jealous of those clowns, not when you can actually do something productive, instead of just mindlessly hoarding material wealth. People are angry, because the trillions of dollars in offshore tax havens aren't circulating back into the economy, which causes problems for the rest of us. There is zero point in desiring more wealth than you could possibly spend in several lifetimes, especially when that deprives others of basic necessities.
Again, no one cares to make those excuses except BERNIE SUPPORTERS.lol. His base will excuse his general lack of progress in policy, but outsiders won’t unless they fundamentally agree with him.

That’s actually not fully true. People emigrate all the time. Why do you think our immigration system (legal applications) are so clogged up? And why don’t people immigrate to Europe instead of America. Why do Californians leave California and go to Texas instead of heading to Vermont. Why is Vermont population decreasing if Bernie policies are so good? You guys just want to complain and blame rich people for your short comings. IMO. If life was really bad in America and saw places that were much better places to live, you’d plan and move to those places sooner or later. You guys don’t seem serious. You just look like entitled brats who thinks you deserve something you haven’t achieved. IMO.

That’s so false. A person who can’t provide food for their family or themselves is not the fault of a rich guy somewhere who hoards his money. That’s such a terrible mentality to have and is so unfounded. Exactly my point about Bernie supporters (on the web at least) just looking like brats. Only 5.5% of people in the workforce work two jobs or more. Our economy is doing amazing. Tax cuts that though have benefited huge corps, have also helped middle class. Business industry... blue collar industries... the type of working class you Bernie supporters say you champion are seeing industry make a comeback under trump while we’re depleting under Obama.
Heck, you were the one to say small business should just cease to exist if they cant provide all workers 15$ an hour. Lol, you know how many business and communities that would ruin?

And I agree it’s dumb what rich people do with their money... but that doesn’t mean you take it away from them and redistribute it. That’s tyrannical. “You use your money wrong, while this guy over here is homeless. You clown rich person, I’m taking it and giving it to the poor guy because that’s morally right and if you resist I’ll just take your property and throw you in jail. Use your money and spend it better next time!”
That person got his money legally and has the right to spend it however he wants to if legal. That’s liberty. Why don’t you become successful and donate it and volunteer to help less fortunate people? Be better. Not be a loser and just complain.

Again, we aren’t in a sinking economy where there are few rich people and everyone else is poor and there’s little job opportunities. We have a great economy and fertile ground for people to get jobs. So economic circulation is good enough. If rich people invest their money for generations and don’t lavishly spend it all back into economy, that’s there prerogative!
You don’t make sense, man.
 

StoicPhantom

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
355
#40
Again, no one cares to make those excuses except BERNIE SUPPORTERS.lol. His base will excuse his general lack of progress in policy, but outsiders won’t unless they fundamentally agree with him.
Do you have any refutation to what I said or proof that these are just excuses?

That’s actually not fully true. People emigrate all the time. Why do you think our immigration system (legal applications) are so clogged up?
I don't know, maybe decades of American foreign policy and war, causing entire regions to be war torn, unstable hell holes, where death is an ever present threat, has something to do with why people might be incentivized to flee to the only country guaranteed to be safe from American imperialism: America.

I didn't say people never emigrate, I said most people don't emigrate. Notice how America makes up about 350 million last I checked, but there are 7 billion people in the world. Unless all of those people are going to try to emigrate to America, I think it's safe to say people generally prefer their homeland.

And why don’t people immigrate to Europe instead of America.
...They do. And Japan. And the United Kingdom. And China. I don't think there is any first world country that has a negative immigration rate.

Why do Californians leave California and go to Texas instead of heading to Vermont. Why is Vermont population decreasing if Bernie policies are so good?
You do realize Bernie is the Senator of Vermont, not the Governor right? Meaning he can't legally enact his policies in Vermont, nor are things he advocates for enacted in Vermont. There are a myriad of reasons for why people might immigrate to a particular location, and one of them might be climate. As in, Vermont is cold as hell and out in the boonies. Old people that are more inclined to stay in the place they live in, also die at a faster rate than young people, who generally leave for more exciting areas.

If life was really bad in America and saw places that were much better places to live, you’d plan and move to those places sooner or later.
Maybe people who are poor and in a bad spot, don't have the money to move half way across the world? Almost like, they're trapped where they're at or something?

That’s so false. A person who can’t provide food for their family or themselves is not the fault of a rich guy somewhere who hoards his money. That’s such a terrible mentality to have and is so unfounded. Exactly my point about Bernie supporters (on the web at least) just looking like brats. Only 5.5% of people in the workforce work two jobs or more. Our economy is doing amazing. Tax cuts that though have benefited huge corps, have also helped middle class. Business industry... blue collar industries... the type of working class you Bernie supporters say you champion are seeing industry make a comeback under trump while we’re depleting under Obama.
I hope you have sources to back all that. Because I have ones that say the exact opposite:

Only 5.5% of people in the workforce work two jobs or more.
Except job growth is stagnating, and wage growth is virtually nonexistant. The thing about employment numbers, is that they are pretty much always inflated by part time and temporary jobs, not ones you want. And it doesn't matter if you have a job or not, if it doesn't pay what you need to survive. That's kind of an important thing.

Our economy is doing amazing.
Then,

Why are almost 80% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck?

Why is healthcare the number one cause of bankruptcy?

Why are there constant worker strikes?

Why is the cost of living, outpacing wage growth?

Tax cuts that though have benefited huge corps, have also helped middle class.
No they didn't.

Business industry... blue collar industries... the type of working class you Bernie supporters say you champion are seeing industry make a comeback under trump while we’re depleting under Obama.
Not really.

Heck, you were the one to say small business should just cease to exist if they cant provide all workers 15$ an hour. Lol, you know how many business and communities that would ruin?
I believe I said that businesses that rely on underpaying workers, aren't making enough to sustain themselves under normal circumstances. Meaning, going by the free market meme, they would naturally fold due to not being attractive enough. And that mega corporations that can afford to undercut them are the bigger threat. Try reading my post.

And I agree it’s dumb what rich people do with their money... but that doesn’t mean you take it away from them and redistribute it. That’s tyrannical. “You use your money wrong, while this guy over here is homeless. You clown rich person, I’m taking it and giving it to the poor guy because that’s morally right and if you resist I’ll just take your property and throw you in jail. Use your money and spend it better next time!”
Newsflash, the Government controls the printing press, if they so desire they can stop pumping money into the economy and let it drain from your accounts naturally. It's their money, not yours. They back and guarantee the money, you're just "borrowing" it.

Why don’t you become successful and donate it and volunteer to help less fortunate people? Be better. Not be a loser and just complain.
Well gee, it might be that I was born with several debilitating diseases, that make my life hell on a daily basis. That I'd like to go do things, but am physically unable to. Almost like people aren't born with equal opportunity or something.

Again, we aren’t in a sinking economy where there are few rich people and everyone else is poor
Yeah, we kind of really ****ing are.

If rich people invest their money for generations and don’t lavishly spend it all back into economy, that’s there prerogative!
Sure, and when everything collapses due to that, like it did with the Great Depression, we all will actually finally be equal in our poverty.

That’s so false. A person who can’t provide food for their family or themselves is not the fault of a rich guy somewhere who hoards his money.
Who do you think distributes the wages? Maybe the rich guys that own the means of production? If you notice in those links I posted, the trend is people not being paid enough to cover their basic needs. If it's not the fault of the rich people who own the means of production not paying them enough, then whose is it? Or do you think money just magically falls out of the sky, when people clock out for the day?


You guys just want to complain and blame rich people for your short comings.
You guys don’t seem serious. You just look like entitled brats who thinks you deserve something you haven’t achieved.
Exactly my point about Bernie supporters (on the web at least) just looking like brats.
You know, for someone who goes on and on about entitlement, you sure as **** don't seem to understand actual difficulty or the hardships people can face on a daily basis. Instead of regurgitating Libertarian memes, how about actually taking a look at the world around you for once. Provided you aren't part of the upper class of course. Economics isn't a religion or a moral system, there are severe consequences for not properly managing or balancing it, that will affect the rich and poor alike.

You don’t make sense, man.
Look in the mirror, friend.
 
Top