2020 US Election (Part One)

[luiz]

@luiz You seem to speak for everyone else while only speaking about and for yourself - and then we are the weird ones? I look up to Sanders because he is so consistent to his ideals and like Rogan said that is a very strong foundation to operate from as a leader. These ideals also happen to be very reasonable for a progressive like me. I watch all the other the democratic alternatives and they are now all quo options by comparison. I never claimed or aspired to be a leader or authority or talk for others I just take some basic primal enjoyment in ridiculing these other crappy options, if someone else find it funny - great. If you try to project that on Bernie or other supporters - that’s on you.

I care about change because America is instrumental in setting poor standards for a post capitalist world. Mostly I try to argue on the issues and unlike you I try to mainly speak for myself.

Now if you don’t mind sharing some real opinions, what is your best option in America? What is the leader among the available candidates on both sides of the election you want to see play an important international role in 2021 and beyond?

Hum, I only speak for myself.
As for Sanders supporters demonizing all other Democratic candidates, I obviously didn't mean only you. Just read this thread for some patent examples. What is odd is that some of the most passionate Berniebros are not even Americans...

Anyway, I had already shared my opinion on who is the best choice. I'd vote for an establishment Democrat if I could. Yang looks pretty decent, perhaps the best of the lot, but I'm no Yang expert (and I don't support UBI, but I don't think he could enact it anyway). And I don't think Biden is the evil monster he is portrayed as in this thread by the Berniebros.

 

[Kyriakos]

Voting for a war criminal is so woke... Did you vote for her in the primary too?

He also held his nose in the primary

 

[Birdjaguar]

Voting for a war criminal is so woke... Did you vote for her in the primary too?

No, not in the primary. Voting for her was a better choice that voting for a turd. There are no perfect politicians. Some are better than others though. Politics = poli (many) + ticks (blood sucking insects). Hillary was a bad nominee; Trump way worse.

 

[Kyriakos]

Politics = poli (many) + ticks (blood sucking insects). Hillary was a bad nominee; Trump way worse.

Actually, politics comes from polis (city, which used to be a nation-like entity) It literally means "of the polis". Nice joke, but very defeatist, which is why many would not go for that and vote some corpocrat.

Anyway, I am not trying to bully or anything - just think that Bernie is the only realistic choice. I like his policies, of course, but I also really doubt any other in the dem potential nominees can defeat Trump.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Actually, politics comes from polis (city, which used to be a nation-like entity) It literally means "of the polis". Nice joke, but very defeatist, which is why many would not go for that and vote some corpocrat.

Anyway, I am not trying to bully or anything - just think that Bernie is the only realistic choice. I like his policies, of course, but I also really doubt any other in the dem potential nominees can defeat Trump.

I have little say in the final choice and will have to live with what happens. My whole point is that the we need to keep our eye on the goal: defeat Trump.

 

[Zkribbler]

My mail-in ballot arrived yesterday. Sucha lotta candidates. The good news is that they're all better than Trump.

 

[amadeus]

Making up easy solutions to complex problems is the absolute hallmark of laissez-faire nitwits like you @amadeus

Whatever insults against me you have aren't going to stop him from losing, bigly!

I'm all for Sanders winning some states because it makes it all the more likely the Democrats are going to experience a miserable convention where they either have to endorse someone who can't win or find someone who could but then alienate so much of his base they stay home in November. The Democrats are going to hand Trump the election on a golden platter.

I wouldn't be so sure. A lot of people, myself included, said that about Trump.

I think Trump is an outlier that too many of his political rivals tried to copy; he had years of experience in the media well before his candidacy and he had a personality that worked well with it. He's a once-in-a-lifetime figure, and anyone that tries to copy him will be a dismal failure. Trump took the Perot rhetoric and smartly used it to get into a major party than form his own as Perot tried to.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The impression I get from my social media circles, being a Brit, is that Pelosi is definitely more of a Republican in a lot of ways than Democrat. Certainly more than a Sanders-type of Democrat (insofar that he's one at all). It doesn't surprise me, assuming it's accurate, that Pelosi would endorse such behaviour.

I do not think that is true. She's not as far left as Sanders but I don't think there is a ton of air between their policy positions and they'd work together well. She has consistently passed progressive bills but has been stymied by a GOP controlled (de facto and then de jure) Senate since 2010.

 

[Ironsided]

Pelosi is not a republican, she is a corrupt liberal democrat who would rather see Bloomberg who is a republican than Bernie who is a social democrat.

@amadeus daw.. bigly.

 

[Berzerker]

No, not in the primary. Voting for her was a better choice that voting for a turd. There are no perfect politicians. Some are better than others though. Politics = poli (many) + ticks (blood sucking insects). Hillary was a bad nominee; Trump way worse.

If Trump had been elected in 2000 we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, he might have even prevented 9/11 by changing direction on foreign policy. If he was elected in 2008 Libya and Syria would still be intact countries. With up to a million or more dead and millions displaced all stemming from policies Clinton supported and Trump opposed you might lose that argument.

 

[Commodore]

If Trump had been elected in 2000 we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, he might have even prevented 9/11 by changing direction on foreign policy

The Iraq thing, maybe. The 9/11 thing, no. He wouldn't have prevented 9/11 because that attack was more or less "in the works" since the first failed bombing of the WTC in 1993.

 

[Narz]

I know someone suggested Rah's cat.

I'd vote for a cat over a dog, less corruptible.

Yeah, here’s the current state of democracy you need to save by electing Bernie.

WTH. It's very disturbing the lack of effort that goes into this. At least hire a magician to do the flip. It's like that want us to know how stupid they think we are.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If Trump had been elected in 2000 we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, he might have even prevented 9/11 by changing direction on foreign policy. If he was elected in 2008 Libya and Syria would still be intact countries. With up to a million or more dead and millions displaced all stemming from policies Clinton supported and Trump opposed you might lose that argument.

Sooo… you'll be voting for Trump then? Sounds like love to me.

 

[Narz]

I'm curious how close it is gonna be in other states.

I want to vote for Yang in the primary but if it's this close between Bernie & Pete I may have to vote for Bernie. The chance of my vote mattering is infinitesimal & they'll probably cheat anyway (I remember the first time I followed politics in 2000 when it seemed like officials in Florida stole the election from Gore).

We'll see.

Looks like Florida's primary election is on Tuesday, March 17, 2020 (not that there appears to be any OT regulars living in Florida besides me)

 

[Sommerswerd]

Its cool living in a "swing state". There are always politicians coming to visit doing campaign rallies and such. When I lived in Philly there seemed to be a different famous politician in town every week.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There was an unflattering article about Yang in the NYT today. I believe it was the NYT, I only read the first half. They interviewed people who worked for him and they said his heart is in the right place but he fumbles a lot on issues of race and gender. They painted him to be a low-key mansplainer.

 

[Commodore]

Its cool living in a "swing state". There are always politicians coming to visit doing campaign rallies and such. When I lived in Philly there seemed to be a different famous politician in town every week.

Yeah Cincinnati gets a lot of presidential candidate visits because not only is Ohio a swing state, but historically however Cincinnati goes, so goes the rest of the state.

 

[Gorbles]

I do not think that is true. She's not as far left as Sanders but I don't think there is a ton of air between their policy positions and they'd work together well. She has consistently passed progressive bills but has been stymied by a GOP controlled (de facto and then de jure) Senate since 2010.

But Sanders isn't even that far left. So what is she, if she's not as far left as a mild centre-leftist?

Besides, policy is a spectrum. Even if she passes legislation for the good of many people, that likely had significant support, that doesn't discredit criticisms around her opinions on foreign policy and American interventionism. "Republican" and "Democrat" are spectrums themselves; it's natural, given the size of the US and the fact it's stuck with a two-party state.

Her apparent endorsements in this context are used, by whichever political grouping you want can imagine, to either claim hypocrisy because she's a Democrat, or to strengthen Trump's apparent standing on the subject. Or both, I guess. I'm not saying this is what Fippy intended with the post I responded to, I'm just saying that's what's done. Personally, I hope your optimism is true. Unfortunately, as someone who definitely just wants anyone to beat Trump and isn't stuck on the beat of "Bernie or bust", there have been an awful lot of weird concidences within the Democrat platform that rarely seem to work out for Sanders. Even if they're all innocuous (which is the impression I get, knowing people with boots on the ground around the Iowa caucus, for example), it speaks ill of a party on the national stage, as well as of its senior members, simply because constant significant screwups aren't something to be proud of!

 

[Berzerker]

The Iraq thing, maybe. The 9/11 thing, no. He wouldn't have prevented 9/11 because that attack was more or less "in the works" since the first failed bombing of the WTC in 1993.

A couple months before we invaded Iraq Trump publicly opposed it, he told Bush to focus on the economy instead. The attacks came shortly into new administrations committed to the status quo. Both were given time to change direction, neither did. Clinton left the army on or near Muslim holy lands to enforce sanctions on Iraq and the WTC was bombed. Bush did the same and we got 9/11. These attacks happened because we stayed, had we left there was no longer a reason to poke us with a stick.

Sooo… you'll be voting for Trump then? Sounds like love to me.

No, I didn't vote for him and I wont in 2020. He's not moving fast enough toward my goal of ending the war on terror, or our role in perpetuating it, ie poking Muslim countries with sticks. But I can acknowledge his better instincts on foreign policy, in comparison to Hillary its no contest. To vote for her after what she has done does take love, I neither love or hate Trump. That allows me to be more objective and fair. Naturally those who hate Trump see that as partisan, thats just human nature. Look at how Republicans reacted to Romney's vote on abuse of power. The pure disown dissent, thats how they stay pure.

Its cool living in a "swing state". There are always politicians coming to visit doing campaign rallies and such. When I lived in Philly there seemed to be a different famous politician in town every week.

Is that a vote against gerrymandered safe seats?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Hillary

isn't currently running... jeez dude, you should consider talking to someone about that.

But I can acknowledge his better instincts on foreign policy, in comparison to Hillary its no contest. To vote for her after what she has done does take love

Again, she isn't running... But in any case, for someone who just said they prefer Trump "in comparison to" someone else and that it was "no contest"... you suddenly seem conveniently unfamiliar with the "lesser of two evils" concept...

I mean are you saying that you alone can "neither love nor hate" Trump and make an "objective" choice that Trump is preferable to someone else... but if anyone else does the same, ie make a determination that one candidate is preferable to another... its proof-positive that they must "love" that candidate? You don't see how contradictory and hypocritical that is?

The bottom line is only love would make a person defend someone so odious as Trump as adamantly and unwaveringly as you do. Therefore you love Trump. That's how unconditional love works.

Is that a vote against gerrymandered safe seats?

I don't see the connection.