Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 514

Thread: 2020 Democratic Primaries

  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Try as I might, I can't wrap my head around the idea that it's bad to have and spend your own money as opposed to constantly soliciting other people for their money to do the same things. And I really loathe this idea I've been hearing from Sanders, Warren, and Steely, that being successful in business and having a lot of money as a consequence is immoral and automatically strips you of any right to pursue public service. I really don't want to see that kind of poisonous class-obsession in my Democratic Party. Europe can keep those attitudes, along with the latent anti-semitism. We've got enough -ism problems over here as it is.
    It's not about being successful, or having lots of money...but how that money is being used to tilt the scales. I'm surprised that you call it "your" Democratic Party, then turn around and call progressives attitudes European (and latently anti-semetic), as if the Republican Party has ever fought for your rights as a gay man.

    You're correct that there's a lot of poisonous class-obsession, which finds its way to the political class, but FFS follow the money trail when you want to "wrap" your head around what's happening in America. Do you really think you should have to BUY your rights on the back of a wealthy benefactor?

  2. #302
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It will never be time for the US to swing to European style progressive until the Democrats are actually prepared to fight for it, rather than constantly second guessing themselves about what they can get done because they think the political climate is some unchanging and unchangeable brute fact in the world. The countries not gonna socialize itself.
    One hopes that part of the second guessing is the conviction deep down that it's just a bad fucking idea and a poor fit for the country in the first place. But I don't really expect that kind of sanity from you.

    In short: you get nothing if you wait for it
    You mean if we don't try to force it to happen, the country won't socialize itself? Hallelujah! I already knew that, as did most people who aren't blinded by typical Republican rhetoric. But seeing as we're talking about candidates who do actually wanna push it into happening. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    It's not about being successful, or having lots of money...but how that money is being used to tilt the scales.
    Except there isn't one whit of difference in how the billionaires are using it vs how the rest are using it. If you want to decry the money involved in major US electioneering, go ahead. We've been talking about that forever. But you, like Steely, singled out the billiionaires. Why? What are they doing that the others aren't? They're all trying to "buy" the election. Bloomberg is just using his own money to do it rather than soliciting it from others first. It would have been nice if he'd gotten involved in the race sooner, but that's because I would have liked the additional time for compare/constrasting positions and to see how he does on an actual campaign trail.

    (and latently anti-semetic), as if the Republican Party has ever fought for your rights as a gay man.
    I didn't, but I figure I'm already ahead of the curve if I'm managing to get you to stick to and understand the first topic so I'm not going to try and get into this topic with you as well.

    You're correct that there's a lot of poisonous class-obsession, which finds its way to the political class, but FFS follow the money trail when you want to "wrap" your head around what's happening in America. Do you really think you should have to BUY your rights on the back of a wealthy benefactor?
    As opposed to BUYING them with a non-wealthy benefactor like with the others?
    Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 02-26-2020 at 03:44 AM.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  3. #303
    Steely isn't wrong in his assessment that the US political process is fucked up.....

    The main question is to what extent we'll be complicit in continuing that fucked up process, or if/how we fight against it...when the party machinery doesn't work like it used to, and the old tropes are outdated. If you're convinced that money doesn't really matter because it's used by both sides, that just means propaganda works.
    Last edited by GGT; 02-26-2020 at 04:12 AM.

  4. #304
    All right, the last debate before Super Tuesday is over, so I have nearly all of my data points I'm going to get before I decide how to vote (SC votes on Saturday but I suspect the results are likely to be idiosyncratic).

    I'd love to have you guys convince me who makes the most sense strategically. My general goal is to make sure we don't have another four years of Trump, but I have some secondary considerations:

    1. No more Trump
    2. Ideally a Democratic House (likely) and a narrowed Republican majority in the Senate (possible); I want the candidate to help or at least not hurt downballot races.
    3. Substantial Democratic gains in state houses for redistricting (though I question how much effect this will have) - I'm not actually a Democrat but I want to punish the GOP for what they did in 2010.
    4. A candidate who doesn't have too many skeletons and has decent policy proposals.

    My feelings about the remaining 6 candidates (I'm not included Steyer) stripped of most strategic considerations:

    Biden - I think he's getting old and showing it and I am concerned that there's too much baggage associated with the Ukraine shananigans that he is a flawed candidate. More importantly to me, his history of pretty creepy behavior towards women leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Policy-wise there's nothing too dramatic I object to, though I'm not particularly excited about anything either - he does have a pretty broad and deep grasp of policy issues faced by a president, though, especially on foreign policy (which is very weak in this field in general).

    Bloomberg - I'm actually not too bothered by the whole 'he's a billionaire trying to buy the election' thing - for one, it makes him less hostage to big donors, and for another money is a major factor in our elections whether or not the candidate is a billionaire (I also have nothing against billionaires in principle, especially when they are someone like Bloomberg who has a sustained history of big-ticket philanthropy). I do think that he appears to be unprepared for a campaign and I'm not convinced he has a great grasp on the full gamut of policy-work that a president needs to address. He did an adequate job in NYC and I appreciate his technocratic approach to problems. It has led to problems - stop and frisk being the biggest one - and he's seemed semi-clueless/tone deaf in trying to understand why he's sometimes been wrong. The whole 'being a dick to women in the workplace' thing is also a black mark. Policy-wise I suspect he'd be adequate with some good areas but I don't have a clue if he has any sense of foreign policy.

    Buttigieg - He talks a really nice talk and I like his general approach to thinking about a problem. Unfortunately I think his policy background is way too thin and his ideas often seem half-baked. I also don't think he did a great job in his only major elected post, mayor of South Bend. He had some pretty big misses (which, to be fair, he has acknowledged) and while I think that with more experience he could be something to reckon with, I don't think he has the chops yet. Also not sure about the whole 'will America vote for a gay man' thing, but one could always hope they will.

    Klobuchar - Not very good speaking extemporaneously but pretty decent policy background. I like her but think her polling is not going to give her a chance. Also not a fan of the whole 'may be an awful boss' thing. I'm sure it would be an improvement over Trump's zero-sum style, but managing an organization as large as the US executive branch requires a great deal of finesse and management skills, and it's not clear she has them.

    Sanders - I don't like his style, his policies, or his supporters. Most of my strategic logic is trying to figure out which person to vote for who can beat Sanders to the nomination. In contrast to some others here, I am not opposed to Sanders just because I think Trump would mop the floor with him (though he probably would), but rather because a Sanders presidency would only be marginally better than a Trump one. He's got a shit-ton of skeletons in his closet that are great ammunition for Trump, though.

    Warren - Not a big fan of her policy positions, but I'll grant that she is the wonkiest of the bunch, and has been willing to put detailed policy proposals out when most candidates like to be a bit more vague. She has, however, been mildly-to-crazily dishonest about how she's going to pay for everything (and her wealth tax is obviously a bad idea). I do not like the populist rhetoric of her campaign (especially demonizing the wealthy rather than making arguments about fairness to support additional burden-sharing), but I do like her personally. She's also relatively free of some of the controversies dogging other candidates. I had the opportunity to evaluate her as a candidate for US Senate; I wasn't super impressed then and voted against her in 2012 (though her opponent was hardly amazing). It was a no-brainer to vote for her in 2018, though, against an idiotic Trumpy opponent.


    So - who should I vote for? If everyone was guaranteed to beat Trump, I'd probably go for Klobuchar, but I suspect a vote for her would be wasted on Super Tuesday. Should I vote for Bloomberg in the hopes that his advertising blitz will give him an edge over Sanders' current lead in the polls, and assume everyone else is already effectively out? Should I assume that African American and Midwestern support for Biden makes him the only viable candidate who can beat Sanders and Trump? Should I assume the progressive wing is going to win, and support Warren in the hopes that her campaign can siphon votes from Sanders? Should I vote for Buttigieg in the hopes that his strong rhetorical skills, Midwestern base, and 'freshness' give him a compelling edge against Trump? I'm curious what you guys think.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  5. #305
    I'm hoping that we see a couple drop-outs after SC, and also hoping that Warren doesn't drop out. I don't really like any of the field, but I'll vote for whoever has the best shot of beating Sanders if my vote is still going to count after Super Tuesday. I'm hoping that SC will narrow the field ahead of that, because right now things are pretty murky on the moderate side of the party. Bloomberg's focus on Super Tuesday means he's unlikely to drop out before then, and that really makes it hard to guess where things are going, and makes it less likely that any moderate will be able to muster enough support to beat Sanders.

    One day I hope I get to vote for a candidate I like instead of just the candidate I dislike the least.

  6. #306
    I can't vote in the primaries because I'm registered as "unaffiliated" in PA. Polls are laughable metrics <that lead to the "surprise" election of president Trump>

  7. #307
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I can't vote in the primaries because I'm registered as "unaffiliated" in PA.
    You're allowed to change that until April 13th.

  8. #308
    I could go into a long and detailed explanation as to why I think Sanders has no hope and if I get the time I will - but long story short, Sanders has about as much hope of becoming President as Jeremy Corbyn had of becoming Prime Minister.

    A failed Sanders nomination might be capable of nudging the Overton Window somewhat but unlikely much and is guaranteeing 4 more years of Trump worth that? Obama managed to achieve a decent amount in his 8 years and another 4 years of Trump will destroy any hope the Democrats had of keeping the Supreme Court remotely balanced, which you can practically sense the Lewkowski's of America salivating over. So is that worth it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  9. #309
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Try as I might, I can't wrap my head around the idea that it's bad to have and spend your own money as opposed to constantly soliciting other people for their money to do the same things. And I really loathe this idea I've been hearing from Sanders, Warren, and Steely, that being successful in business and having a lot of money as a consequence is immoral and automatically strips you of any right to pursue public service. I really don't want to see that kind of poisonous class-obsession in my Democratic Party. Europe can keep those attitudes, along with the latent anti-semitism. We've got enough -ism problems over here as it is.
    I got the impression that Bloomberg entered the race when it became apparent that Biden's campaign was flagging. Biden the Centrist would champion what we think of as moderate policy these days - policy that would, at its core, protect "The Money" the way Warren/ Sanders policy would not, while at the same time, to be fair, do far Less Evil than Trump. IMO, in a lot of ways, too much protecting/serving The Money is at the heart of US decline we've seen for the last 40 odd years. So while Bloomberg is infinitely better a choice than Trump, he'll not do much to reverse all that's gotten worse. But, to be fair again, very likely nobody can do that anyway (it's difficult not to be pessimistic). Still, that's why I don't like Bloomberg. It really isn't because he's a billionaire - I don't want non-billionaire Biden to be president either, and for the same reasons.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  10. #310
    Wig, wait until after S. Carolina. A lot can happen before now and Super Tuesday. Klobuchar has no chance at this point. Biden has a shot if he does really well in S. Carolina. I also want to see if Bloomberg's unfavorability keeps increasing.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #311
    Biden doesn't have the mental faculties to be elected to the United States Senate. Its sad to see him on the stage and Trump would make mincemeat out of him.



    Trump doesn't have the mental faculties either, but he bluffs hard and his supporters don't care.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  12. #312
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Try as I might, I can't wrap my head around the idea that it's bad to have and spend your own money as opposed to constantly soliciting other people for their money to do the same things. And I really loathe this idea I've been hearing from Sanders, Warren, and Steely, that being successful in business and having a lot of money as a consequence is immoral and automatically strips you of any right to pursue public service. I really don't want to see that kind of poisonous class-obsession in my Democratic Party. Europe can keep those attitudes, along with the latent anti-semitism. We've got enough -ism problems over here as it is.
    There's a difference between doing well in business and getting rich, and hoarding such a large amount of money that it cannot adequately be comprehended by the human mind.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  13. #313
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    One hopes that part of the second guessing is the conviction deep down that it's just a bad fucking idea and a poor fit for the country in the first place. But I don't really expect that kind of sanity from you.
    The very fact that you consider ideas like "people should have access to healthcare without going bankrupt" or "we should limit access to guns somewhat" as 'insane' just goes to show how well house trained the right wing media machine has gotten you.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  14. #314
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Biden doesn't have the mental faculties to be elected to the United States Senate. Its sad to see him on the stage and Trump would make mincemeat out of him.



    Trump doesn't have the mental faculties either, but he bluffs hard and his supporters don't care.
    A) Trump is worse, so he wouldn't.
    B) Clinton won each debate and it barely mattered.
    C) Biden was always like this. He's not a great speaker.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #315
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    The very fact that you consider ideas like "people should have access to healthcare without going bankrupt" or "we should limit access to guns somewhat" as 'insane' just goes to show how well house trained the right wing media machine has gotten you.
    Bloomberg has done more than anyone else on that stage to pass gun control. Sanders was voting to help gun manufacturers as recently as 12 years ago.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  16. #316
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Bloomberg has done more than anyone else on that stage to pass gun control. Sanders was voting to help gun manufacturers as recently as 12 years ago.
    He's also done more than anyone on that stage to criminalise black people.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  17. #317
    Bullshit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  18. #318
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Bullshit.
    You should refund that $150 if that's the best you can do.

    Actually, don't. He doesn't need the money.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  19. #319
    I'm not backing Bloomberg, I'd rather Buttigieg wins, but the idea that Bloomberg is the most racist man in America under President Trump is insane. That's like saying Bob Cratchitt is the biggest scrooge at Scrooge & Marley's counting house.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  20. #320
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I'm not backing Bloomberg,
    It's ok man, I'd take the money too.

    I'd rather Buttigieg wins, but the idea that Bloomberg is the most racist man in America under President Trump is insane.
    You clearly missed the part where Loki and I used the words "on that stage", as in "amongst the Democratic nominees".
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  21. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's ok man, I'd take the money too.



    You clearly missed the part where Loki and I used the words "on that stage", as in "amongst the Democratic nominees".
    Fair point. In which case its a relatively meaningless comment. That's like saying most sexually promiscuous virgin in the nunnery.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  22. #322
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    He's also done more than anyone on that stage to criminalise black people.
    If by that you mean he's one of two people on that stage to have executive experience in a place that had African Americans (and the other allowed his police department to regularly mistreat black suspects).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  23. #323
    Fair point. In which case its a relatively meaningless comment. That's like saying most sexually promiscuous virgin in the nunnery.
    https://nypost.com/2013/06/28/bloomb...-frisk-checks/

    “I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It’s exactly the reverse of what they say,” Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show, in response to the City Council passing two bills aimed at reining in the controversial policing tactic.

    “I don’t know where they went to school but they certainly didn’t take a math course. Or a logic course.”
    Also, "I don’t know where they went to school but they certainly didn’t take a math course. Or a logic course." Jesus Christ, what an asshole. I genuinely hate this man.


    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    If by that you mean he's one of two people on that stage to have executive experience in a place that had African Americans (and the other allowed his police department to regularly mistreat black suspects).
    "Even Democrats will default to abusing any black people that come under their power" is a bold line for Status Quo Man to be taking.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  24. #324
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  25. #325
    Oh, and I forgot to address the point that Bloomberg being mega-rich is good because he won't be beholden to big donors. Uh, he *is* a big donor. When we say we want stop the rich influencing politics and policy by making enormous donations to politicians, cutting out the middle man and just having one of them be president directly is not what we had in mind.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  26. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Oh, and I forgot to address the point that Bloomberg being mega-rich is good because he won't be beholden to big donors. Uh, he *is* a big donor. When we say we want stop the rich influencing politics and policy by making enormous donations to politicians, cutting out the middle man and just having one of them be president directly is not what we had in mind.
    See, there's that obsession of yours with the rich as the Enemy of the People again. I don't care if the rich influence politics anymore than I care about labor unions influencing politics. I dislike the direction some try to influence politics (Koch brothers being an example). I can certainly see the argument that the only way to prevent the latter is to put a stop to it in general. But since that's certainly not going to happen this election cycle, the only reason to raise the "big donors are bad for politics" argument against Bloomberg is if you think he's going to be using it to influence politics in a way you really don't like, either as a donor or as a candidate. What immoral rich person agenda is it you think he's pushing Steely? Think that if he's elected he's going to use it to reimplement "stop and frisk" as a national policy with his new half-state/half-corporate goon force and establish "sexual harassment day" by Executive Order? Or do you think it's something worse, that he'll be a fairly standard Democrat, continue the ACA, reopen the borders, raise taxes some to help pay for various social measures but not by huge amounts or try to nationalize industries? How is it, Steely, that you think the only appropriate response to the recent successes the Right has seen is to try and prove true all the fearmongering they've been using to get it?

    What I would really like to see (I won't get it, but it's a dream of mine) is for these last eight years and the upcoming four to eight to bring about one of those periodic realignments we see in US politics. The fiscally conservative wing of the Republican Party has collapsed. It's dead right now, there's no sign of it anywhere. What I would love would be for a moderate Democratic Party to bring those people in, build a policy-dynamic wedding both the need in a modern society to provide adequate social support and responsible fiscal restraint.
    Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 02-27-2020 at 03:49 AM.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  27. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    "Even Democrats will default to abusing any black people that come under their power" is a bold line for Status Quo Man to be taking.
    I don't think you realize how popular stop and frisk (and broken windows policing) was in NYC. There's a reason Guiliani and Bloomberg won 5 consecutive elections. There's a lot of revisionism taking place by the left right now.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  28. #328
    Historically low turnouts, exceptional events, and a dude who essentially bought himself a third term. I dunno mate.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  29. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    See, there's that obsession of yours with the rich as the Enemy of the People again.
    You say that as if this is some kind of gotcha, rather than a position I'm more than happy to defend. Maybe we'll have that conversation one day, it's kinda tangential to this thread, but for now I will say that their interests are fundamentally opposed to ours.

    I don't care if the rich influence politics anymore than I care about labor unions influencing politics. I dislike the direction some try to influence politics (Koch brothers being an example). I can certainly see the argument that the only way to prevent the latter is to put a stop to it in general.
    There's also the argument that it's fundamentally anti-democratic, but I agree that's not the main issue here.

    But since that's certainly not going to happen this election cycle, the only reason to raise the "big donors are bad for politics" argument against Bloomberg is if you think he's going to be using it to influence politics in a way you really don't like, either as a donor or as a candidate. What immoral rich person agenda is it you think he's pushing Steely?
    De-regulation, tax breaks for his buddies, eternal war, no real progress towards proper health-care, no attempt to curb police violence towards minorities, half measures on climate change etc etc.

    Think that if he's elected he's going to use it to reimplement "stop and frisk" as a national policy with his new half-state/half-corporate goon force and establish "sexual harassment day" by Executive Order?
    Think stop and fisk or his comments about women just came out nowhere and aren't indicative of his attitudes to women and minorities, and thus a factor in how he'll make policy about them? You want a guy who told a pregnant employee to "kill it" is the right person to be making life and death decisions about policy on reproductive health or on women's access to maternal leave, for example?

    How is it, Steely, that you think the only appropriate response to the recent successes the Right has seen is to try and prove true all the fearmongering they've been using to get it?
    I think the appropriate response to Republican fearmongering is to push back against it, not go "why yes, high taxes for the rich and moderate social protections is just like communism, we certainly don't believe anything like that"

    What I would really like to see (I won't get it, but it's a dream of mine) is for these last eight years and the upcoming four to eight to bring about one of those periodic realignments we see in US politics. The fiscally conservative wing of the Republican Party has collapsed. It's dead right now, there's no sign of it anywhere. What I would love would be for a moderate Democratic Party to bring those people in, build a policy-dynamic wedding both the need in a modern society to provide adequate social support and responsible fiscal restraint.
    The fiscally conservative wing of the Republican party has collapsed because it never existed in any real sense. In the same way their belief in "family values" was never real, just plausible cover story for homophobic policies, their professed belief in "fiscal conservativism" was simply a plausible cover for implementing policies benefit the rich (their true constituency) at their expense of everyone else. The modern Republican party of the Trump era isn't some perversion of the, say, pre-Clinton era Republican party, it's the same institution that no longer needs pretence. They dislike Trump because he's an embarrassment, but one they're prepared to put up with because he's giving them everything they've ever wanted.
    Last edited by Steely Glint; 02-27-2020 at 06:11 PM.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  30. #330
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I don't think you realize how popular stop and frisk (and broken windows policing) was in NYC. There's a reason Guiliani and Bloomberg won 5 consecutive elections. There's a lot of revisionism taking place by the left right now.
    Sorry, I thought you were supposed to be arguing for the idea that the a standard Democrat rather than a progressive is the best option? Stop confusing me.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •