2020 US Election (Part One)

[Kyriakos]

 

[stinkubus]

Absolute farce. These people think we are stupid? Do they think we will get discouraged? Nah. I never thought I would ever do this in my life, but I am going to donate to Sanders and maybe even go knock on doors for him. The establishment absolutely HATES him, but I am ready to pick up a torch and burn the establishment down. Fight me :0

I've already donated $50 and I'll do another $50 after my next paycheck. I will also be phone banking and canvassing when the PA primary comes around.

It's time for labor to take our political party back.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is the kind of "us vs. them" thinking that is part of the problem, not the solution. You are essentially declaring anyone who doesn't vote Democrat to be your sworn enemy. That's not a healthy attitude for public discourse.

A couple of things. First, at this point there is no civil public discourse between the parties. Trump has set the tone from the beginning with his lies, violations of law, and corrupted cabinet. He has never let up. I never said anything about enemies, sworn or otherwise. That's you. I just said that those who who don't vote for the Dem nominee are Republicans. they are supporting the Republican cause. I do have opinions about those who are active Trump supporters; they are not my enemies at all. They are enemies of the constitution and democracy, that's all.

It is true that if Bernie gets the nomination, the 1% of dem voters won't back him

I wish that were true. But, I think it will be much higher who just don't vote.and if he is not the nominee, there will be heaps of Dems who will be petty and not vote.

 

[Estebonrober]

This is the kind of "us vs. them" thinking that is part of the problem, not the solution. You are essentially declaring anyone who doesn't vote Democrat to be your sworn enemy. That's not a healthy attitude for public discourse.

Idk what rock you’ve been living under but the GOP has had this attitude for decades.

anyways considering the amount of disinformation, obfuscation, and literally violent attacks the GOP and it’s supporters have kids into it is only time before ethics crap leads to real violence.

 

[Kyriakos]

I wish that were true. But, I think it will be much higher who just don't vote.and if he is not the nominee, there will be heaps of Dems who will be petty and not vote.

Assuming there are people who would vote for something like Biden, how can anyone think those are expressed by the same views voters of Bernie have? At some point the difference is chaotic, which is why one needs to at least trust the candidate even if their policies are crap. Bernie, fwiw, is consistent and ethical. Biden is free-falling to full dementia, sadly for him (and should quit for his own sake!)

 

[Birdjaguar]

Assuming there are people who would vote for something like Biden, how can anyone think those are expressed by the same views voters of Bernie have? At some point the difference is chaotic, which is why one needs to at least trust the candidate even if their policies are crap. Bernie, fwiw, is consistent and ethical. Biden is free-falling to full dementia, sadly for him (and should quit for his own sake!)

True, but for 2020 none of that matters. Any Dem will be better than Trump. No Dem will be as bad as Trump.

 

[Commodore]

I just said that those who who don't vote for the Dem nominee are Republicans. they are supporting the Republican cause

And this kind of thinking is wrong. You are ascribing a position to third-party or independent voters that does not line up with their actual position. And you are doing it in an attempt to intimidate, shame, and bully them into voting for your cause.

Idk what rock you’ve been living under but the GOP has had this attitude for decades

So if your opponent does it, that makes it okay for you to do it as well? What ever happened to being the "bigger person"? If you use the same tactics as your opponent, then you lose any right to claim the moral high ground over your opponent.

I mean, didn't your parents ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

 

[Kyriakos]

True, but for 2020 none of that matters. Any Dem will be better than Trump. No Dem will be as bad as Trump.

That was also the line in 2016. It's just weak, as shown in practice.

6000 more votes than Butt - says it all, really.

 

[innonimatu]

I'm more worried about health concerns. Trump has no reason to have him shot, since he probably figures he'd crush him. But I guess Trump thinks he'll crush anybody at this point.

No, Bernie is a real threat to him. He even said so.

SOP for not getting shot is to run with a second who's even more of a threat to the ones who might do the shooting. I can only think of Gabbard who seems to scare the mic and be for m4a. Unfortunately it must be also someone popular, which is in short supply among contenders for VP position.

Dude stop saying stuff like this... even as a joke...

A joke? There was once this Kennedy guy, wasn't it?

A couple of things. First, at this point there is no civil public discourse between the parties. Trump has set the tone from the beginning with his lies, violations of law, and corrupted cabinet.

No. To be fair the democrats were the ones who set the tone with russiagate. Who knows what might have happened if they instead played on Trump's apparent need for approval? They burned any possible bridge.

Not content with russiagate, which was bound to fail because Trump was not the type to chicken out, they doubled down with the Kavanaugh thing. And then came up with ukrainegate. I've never seen a party* so bent on alienating voters and losing elections.

Edit: in the US. There is the PS in France, the PD in Italy... who just happen to have made the mistake of copying the democrats (down to the name in the PD case).

 

[stinkubus]

No. To be fair the democrats were the ones who set the tone with russiagate.

The right wing in America has been completely off the rails since Reagan repealed the fairness doctrine which cleared the way for talk radio hosts like Limbaugh. Demonizing the left, and the centrists and clandestine right-wingers who they identify as left, has been going on for almost 40 years now.

There's nothing comparable coming from other side. I agree that Russia-gate is over blown. If we are really concerned about foreign influence in American elections let's talk Israel and the gulf oil states first. Guess who they also support?

 

[Kyriakos]

Ehm, WTH is this by the DNC and Tom Perez? Re-canvass (count again) NOW? Why? Cause it would be bad if we actually had the result before New Hampshire? Cause even the number of state delegates may be more for Bern?
These people are too dumb to even protect their own image; Bernie already won anyway (by a 6000 actual vote margin), give it a rest DNC, no one trusts you to recount anything.

 

[Estebonrober]

So if your opponent does it, that makes it okay for you to do it as well? What ever happened to being the "bigger person"? If you use the same tactics as your opponent, then you lose any right to claim the moral high ground over your opponent.

I mean, didn't your parents ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

You're right and I generally agree with you here. I think the high ground is the way to go, I also give it less than a 50% shot of working.

 

[Estebonrober]

The right wing in America has been completely off the rails since Reagan repealed the fairness doctrine which cleared the way for talk radio hosts like Limbaugh. Demonizing the left, and the centrists and clandestine right-wingers who they identify as left, has been going on for almost 40 years now.

There's nothing comparable coming from other side. I agree that Russia-gate is over blown. If we are really concerned about foreign influence in American elections let's talk Israel and the gulf oil states first. Guess who they also support?

Ty for pointing this out, it is on motherlovin point.

 

[Ajidica]

SOP for not getting shot is to run with a second who's even more of a threat to the ones who might do the shooting. I can only think of Gabbard who seems to scare the mic and be for m4a. Unfortunately it must be also someone popular, which is in short supply among contenders for VP position.

Why do you always present Gabbard as if she was some sort of 'anti-war' candidate? She has stated multiple times she is only against 'regime-change wars' and fully supports drone strikes, missile strikes, and special ops teams to fight 'terrorists'. I'm pretty sure she has also said something to the effect of the US shouldn't look at human rights when conducing arms deals with sordid little El Presidentes whose intelligence services are fond of dissapearing the odd protester.
Plus there is her support of Modi's Hindu Nationalist (Hindu Supremacist?) policies which sort of makes her support for 'secular' dictators look more like she just really hates Islam as opposed to any secular beliefs.

No. To be fair the democrats were the ones who set the tone with russiagate. Who knows what might have happened if they instead played on Trump's apparent need for approval? They burned any possible bridge.

I know you are smarter than this.
Trump burned largely every possible bridge to the Democratic party. After his election the Democratic leadership made a big deal of 'we can work together on things we can agree on, such as infrastructure. 'Infrastructure Week' became a running joke before quietly dropped by the administration. The closest we ever saw to an 'Infrastructure Bill' was the feds saying they'll provide some chump change if local government builds some highways. Everything else -such as prescription drug prices- was dead on arrival once the institutional GOP got wind of it.
Trump on the other hand launched his presidency with a Muslim ban that got slapped down by the court three times before squeaking through after the court decided to willfully ignore both context and precedent they established in the very same session. Never mind a few months later Trump referred to neo-Nazis and all manner of white supremacists as 'very fine people'.
You and clearly disagree about the level of Russian involvement -whether state or parastatal actors- in the 2016 election, but you have to admit Trump firing the FBI director after the FBI refused to swear loyalty to Trump after Trump's National Security Adviser lied in a counterintelligence investigation was definitely concerning.

Not content with russiagate, which was bound to fail because Trump was not the type to chicken out, they doubled down with the Kavanaugh thing.

You mean the fact that even people who supported Kavanaugh, like Benjamin Wittes (google him) changed their opinion on his suitability for the Supreme Court after Kavanaugh went on national television and as part of his opening statement shouted that Dr Ford was part of a Clinton plot?

And then came up with ukrainegate. I've never seen a party* so bent on alienating voters and losing elections.

So, there was nothing wrong with Trump ignoring Congressional appropriations and making disbursement of appropriated funds conditional on a foreign government re-opening a closed investigation for personal gain in smearing a potential political rival?
I thought you were all about democracy, not ignoring Congressional appropriations and doing dodgy smear jobs with foreign countries.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Lighten up Francis. It was just some prank calls. That's hardly qualifies as some nefarious plot to undermine the election.

This jumps to mind:

Spoiler :

 

[innonimatu]

There's nothing comparable coming from other side. I agree that Russia-gate is over blown. If we are really concerned about foreign influence in American elections let's talk Israel and the gulf oil states first. Guess who they also support?

And the extremely irritating thing is that Trump is doing them all the favors he can because that was the only large lobby willing to support him in Washington when he took over. I think it could have gone differently, despite that in-law of his.

@Ajidica : whatever your concerns, the "war on Trump" was counter-productive in many ways. It's never a good idea to start a war you can't win. Those three examples I gave, they were wars against Trump that could not be won.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, Bernie is a real threat to him. He even said so.

You are seriously citing Donald Trump as your reliable source.

 

[Ajidica]

@Ajidica : whatever your concerns, the "war on Trump" was counter-productive in many ways. It's never a good idea to start a war you can't win. Those three examples I gave, they were wars against Trump that could not be won.

I'm sort of disappointed your response is basically "Yeah, well, I'm right". You can agree the Muslim Travel ban was rooted in racial animus, you can agree that Trump firing the FBI Director because the Director failed to swear loyalty to Trump is concerning, you can agree that Kavanaugh shouting during a prepared statement that Dr Ford is part of a Clinton conspiracy is conduct unbecoming of a Supreme Court judge, and you can agree that ignoring Congressional instructions in order to bully a foreign country into re-opening a closed investigation with the intent running a smear campaign against a domestic political rival is wrong. Why do you keep carrying water from Trump and running the whole "lol, silly Democrats are to silly to realize the 3d chess Trump is playing"? Should the democrats not have opposed the Travel ban? Should they not have raised concerns when the FBI Director was fired for not swearing personal loyalty to the President? Should they not have been concerned when the President ignored congressional appropriations to bully a foreign country into smearing a domestic political rival?

 

[Commodore]

I find all this consideration being given to the idea of Bernie being assassinated ridiculous, even if it is done in jest. When was the last time a president or presidential candidate had a serious attempt on their life? Reagan?

Also, once a candidate meets certain criteria they get Secret Service protection. I don't know if Bernie met that criteria yet, but if he does then the chances of him getting assassinated will drop even lower than the miniscule chance of it happening now.

In short: calm down, nobody's going to shoot Bernie.

 

[astrallite]

You are seriously citing Donald Trump as your reliable source.

To be fair he's not the source here, there are anonymous sources saying he's claimed Bernie would be hard to beat. Which is consistent with Trump's disinterest in attacking Bernie and some of the other things he's said. Although even if Trump believes Bernie is the strongest candidate doesn't actually make it true. Donald Trump also thinks there's a Crowdstrike server in Kiev with emails that show Ukraine interfered in the 2016 US election.

Turnout in Iowa was bad, really bad. If it keeps going like this none of the candidates are going to be able to blow out Trump, it's going to come down to a few votes in swing states.