Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Rab said:

She is my pick for 2028, amazing woman 

Why not 2024 already? She'll be 35 and thus eligible by then

On that note, that age limit is totally outdated and needs to be removed imo



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Rab said:

She is my pick for 2028, amazing woman 

Why not 2024 already? She'll be 35 and thus eligible by then

On that note, that age limit is totally outdated and needs to be removed imo

My guess is Bernie will win, and I'd like to see him do his two terms, but of course I wouldn't cry if she made it in 2024 ;) 



Rab said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Why not 2024 already? She'll be 35 and thus eligible by then

On that note, that age limit is totally outdated and needs to be removed imo

My guess is Bernie will win, and I'd like to see him do his two terms, but of course I wouldn't cry if she made it in 2024 ;) 

How about her as VP then? Bernie will be getting quite old by then, so the risk of him dying in office are quite real by then.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Rab said:

My guess is Bernie will win, and I'd like to see him do his two terms, but of course I wouldn't cry if she made it in 2024 ;) 

How about her as VP then? Bernie will be getting quite old by then, so the risk of him dying in office are quite real by then.

I repeat, if Bernie dies in office, we can get MORE than 8 years of his VP, so if his VP is AOC, and he dies, we can get a maximum of 10 years of AOC by law. Bernie would have to just live 2 years into his second term and after that if he doesn't complete it, his VP can complete it and it doesn't count as a term.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
HylianSwordsman said:

1. No, she did not. Like, at all. She actually is still personally against homosexuality. If you read that whole paragraph, I cite sources showing she still is against it but just doesn't want the government to legislate her personal morals. Biden uses the same libertarian excuse to be personally against abortion but not vote to restrict it. On some level I respect this reasoning, but I don't want someone who uses this reasoning to represent me at the highest levels of government where they'll be setting the agenda for LGBT rights, choosing who will defend against legal attacks against LGBT rights, and is in support of fundamentalist Christian activist right wing judges chosen by Trump. 

2. There's a difference between not tearing down democratically elected governments and replacing them with dictators (as we have a history of) and stopping dictators that are oppressing their people. I'm not in favor of all our constant U.S. military involvement, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't support our values when we see them taking root in other countries, and do what we can to thwart the aims of dictators, particularly expansionist aims, and human-rights violations. Also, I bet Trump or at least his defenders would use the same logic to defend white nationalists supporting him. It's not a good sign when your efforts exicte fascists and white supremacists. It shouldn't necessarily be disqualifying, but they don't support her for her economic positions, that's for sure.

3. It was the most in depth source I could find. There's sources all over the web, take your pick. She has connections to a cult. I'm not okay with that.

1. I checked all the links, but could't find anything that support your claim that she would still be against homosexuality. The first one is 15 years old and outdated, the Rolling Stone quote is also from that time if you read it correctly. Not sure if you linked the right Ozy video as she's not been talking about homosexuality at any point there. Finally, you seem to think it being impossible that she felt Buescher being left out was because of his religion, which would have violated Article VI of the constitution. However, I agree that was misguided.

Now, for some proofs that she has changed her views on the subject:

https://youtu.be/HJOX4yqqwQE

from 2012, where she apologizes for her past.

She has opposed the Defense of Marriage Act before it got deemed unconstitutional, and is supporting Obergefell v Hodges, which guarantees the right of same-sex couples to get married.

https://www.hrc.org/blog/hawaii-congressional-delegation-calls-for-marriage-equality , where she is part of a movement to bring same-sex marriage to Hawaii, saying that Civil union sare not the same as a reall marriage. This coming from the Human Rights Campaign, which are adamantly in support of same-sex marriage, and the fact that Tulsi has apparently a perfect 100 score with them nowadays shows that she genuinely changed her views on the subject.

Considering her religious Father and thus traditional education (even more so as she got home-schooled), I can see how she got raised staunchly against same-sex marriage, but understand that she has wisened up over the years.

2. The problem of deposing a dictator like that is that it creates a power vacuum, which will get exploited by more extremist groups. We could see that in Irak, in Afghanistan and Lybia. This is also the reason why Bush senior left Saddam in office - he was at that point the lesser of the evils. Also, the democracy the US brings always seems to be based on the very outdated US election system, not necessarily helping the case.

3. I think that is based on a misunderstanding how Hinduism works. In contrary to Christianity for instance, there is no standard, orthodox way to it, and everyone lives his faith differently, each with his own philosophy to it. Hence why there are so many different temples. But sites like the one you linked seem to not understand that that is normal and expected to Hinduism and not a splinter sect like it would be in case of a Judaeo-Christian religion.

She also declines any Hindu meeting where Vishwa Hindu Parishad participates due to it's being a very nationalistic Indian group doing pretty much everything that the article you linked claims her to be doing. https://www.news18.com/news/world/not-participating-in-indias-partisan-politics-us-lawmaker-tulsi-gabbard-denies-chairing-world-hindu-congress-1871215.html 

1. From the Ozy article, with all relevant quotes quoted in full, so you know I'm not taking this out of context:

About 10 years ago, Gabbard violated some of the tenets that now make her so popular as a Democrat with an EMILY’s List endorsement to boot — she was neither pro-choice nor pro-gay-marriage, and in fact fell in line with her erstwhile Republican father. “She’s definitely distanced herself since,” says Jacqueline Lasky, professor of state politics at the University of Hawaii. “She wouldn’t have been successful otherwise.” (Nationally, there’s little talk about it; Kennedy told me he “didn’t really know” about Gabbard’s early conservative stances.) Hawaii bloggers and reporters widely have Gabbard on record as referring to the agendas of “homosexual extremists” at one point; when I ask her, she replies, “That thing I said ages ago?” Yes, I say. “Honestly, I’d have to go back and look,” she says. After repeated follow-ups, the congresswoman replies with a note about her sponsorship of the Equality Act (adding sexual orientation to categories of prohibited discrimination) and of her support for equal treatment of gay service members’ spouses.

Fittingly for her narrative, though, the explanation for her changed ideology feints us back onto familiar territory — the military. It was, she says, the days in the Middle East that taught her the dangers of a theocratic government “imposing its will” on the people. (She tells me that, no, her personal views haven’t changed, but she doesn’t figure it’s her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others.)

This article was from 2016, so it's post Obergefell v. Hodges, so after all of your evidence.

And yes, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that Mazie Hirono or Kamala Harris were against Trump's judge for reasons of religious discrimination. That also happened after all your evidence, and shows how she could still hurt the LGBT cause without running afoul of Human Rights Campaign.

2. I won't defend the US election system for a second, as we desperately need to update it, but this nonsense that deposing a dictator inevitably leaves a power vacuum has to stop. I'm not talking about "we came, we saw, he died" I'm talking about what the French did for us in the American Revolution. There is a way to ensure that democratic interests take hold after a dictator is removed, and that is to make sure that the would-be new democratic government is involved every step of the way in doing the deposing, and to never be there ourselves. Supplies and training, not troops. This way the victory, if it is meant to be, is earned entirely by the newly free people, their victory, not our meddling. Also, we need to continue to support them even after the war is over, as we did after WWII with the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan worked. Holy fuck did it work. You are the proof of that. Terrorist groups rise because we leave economic wrecks everywhere we touch and do nothing to help the starving people, while the terrorists do. That's how they recruit people in the first place and win the support of the populace. We keep doing it wrong, we've been doing it wrong since...well WWII actually. We've occasionally got it right on a smaller scale, but never in any high profile situation we can point to. Leaving dictators to rule as long as they want and leaving their people to suffer at their hands is immoral. We can't just do nothing. The longer we do nothing, the more they build up their forces to expand, and in many cases, nuclearize, as we saw with North Korea. That is not safe for human life. The more this style of government spreads, the harder it is to stop it from spreading. I'm not for constant war, as our people deserve to know peace, but so do their people. Helping their people find peace does not have to mean ending our own peace. Regimes have to change eventually, and while we shouldn't do it ourselves, we should be willing to help the brave souls who want to do it for themselves, and to help support their peace in the aftermath.

3. I understand how Hinduism works. That doesn't mean that it's immune to cults. And you seem to fundamentally misunderstand religion altogether. All religions, Christianity included, and practiced by the individual first and foremost. The religious institutions that organize groups of individuals into an orthodox path are just that, institutions, not the religion itself. Hindu may not have such a rigid structure to it as Christianity does, but temples have more than one person that attend them, generally, do they not? A cult is not defined by how many or how few attend it, it's defined by its behavior. They're notoriously hard to prove because they're so secretive. I can say this much, I don't trust the Hare Krishna movement, I don't trust the Science of Identity Foundation, and I don't trust Chris Butler, its founder.

Ask yourself this, is Gabbard your best choice? Truly? Are there no others that have similar viewpoints on war? Sanders is good enough for me on that front. Why is Gabbard your first choice? I recognize you're not a US citizen so your choice doesn't directly matter, but there are a lot of people in this thread mentioning her, and I have to ask, out of seventeen choices and growing, why her? I keep seeing her foreign policy positions mentioned, but you can get that elsewhere, and you can definitely get her economics elsewhere. Do you really want to champion someone who champions dictators, has even the slightest trace of a possible connection to a cult, and attacks her colleagues when they defend the justice system from fundamentalist activists attacking LGBT rights? Is that your girl? Really? You've got nothing better in a veritable sea of candidates?



Rab said:

She is my pick for 2028, amazing woman 

She is definitely my primary choice once she becomes eligible.

Male or female, we have not seen anyone come into Congress with this much energy, tenaciousness, fearlessness, demand for accountability and honest care for the people in a very long time.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

I'm more focused on electability right now. I want a candidate who will be able to beat Trump. I don't care if they aren't the ideal progressive candidate. Anyone who wants Trump to be a single-term president needs to forget about litmus tests. Right now, Biden seems to be the best bet given the limited polling data we have at the moment. Yes, he's centrist to a fault, but a moderate Democrat is still infinitely better than Trump (or any other modern-day Republican, for that matter). Of course, that could change considerably as we get closer to the primaries. Maybe Bernie will end up being our best bet, or maybe one of the lesser-known candidates as they become better known. But we need someone that's going to appeal to the middle, not just to the base.

Despite the all the news this week, I still think the Democrats have the upper hand. The first rounds of polls after the release of AG Barr's summary of the Mueller Report show that Trump's approval ratings are still underwater, and if they don't improve over the next month or so, I think it's safe to say that his poor ratings had little to do with hypothetical links to Russia. He is still a boorish man-child that can't go a single day without making an ass of himself. He is still a very authoritarian-minded person who idolizes dictators and openly expresses a desire to punish his opponents for having the audacity to oppose him. His policies are still rubbish, and most are hated by a majority of Americans. He never revitalized the Rust Belt despite all of his posturing about bringing back manufacturing jobs. In general, it seems almost like he goes out of his way to be a polarizing figure. If his approval ratings continue to hover in the low 40s in the coming months, then the 2020 election will be the Democrats' to lose. And if his ratings don't improve appreciably within the next several months, then I doubt they will improve by this time next year when the primaries are in full swing. No President with net negative approval ratings has been re-elected since approval ratings have been a thing, and if Trump continues to be deeply unpopular into 2020, his chances of winning become ever more remote.

However, the Dems absolutely cannot rest on their laurels regardless of how weak and vulnerable Trump is as a candidate. They need to buckle down and take this election seriously. They need to accept whatever the final Mueller report says (assuming we ever get it), and if there's still isn't anything definitively demonstrating some kind or criminal or ethical malfeasance on Trump's part, then they need to absolutely drop that and focus on the rest of Trump's insufferable bullshit. Trump has done enough to earn the ire of a majority of Americans, and Democrats cannot squander this. All indications, from Trump's state-level approval ratings to hypothetical 2020 match-up polls to the results of the 2018 midterms, suggest that we've rebuilt the "Blue Wall" and that Arizona and Georgia will likely be in play after being reliably red for years, so they need to continue to focus on those areas to secure or flip them into the Blue column. We could even put Trump on the defensive in Texas.

Whoever the nominee is, they need to play it smart, and the base needs to turn out to vote this time and not sit at home or vote third-party if Bernie doesn't win in the primaries again. Defeating Trump should absolutely be our top priority next year, not ensuring our ideal progressive candidate becomes the nominee.



So, it seems like Pete's miraculous 11% poll is because it was a telephone poll which didn't randomize the order of the contenders, so his name was always there at the beginning of the call. A bit of a bummer, but I doubt he's stuck with the 1% group either.



 

 

 

 

 

Slight update.

1 new candidate with an exploratory committee - Mike Gravel.
1 exploratory candidate now with an official bid - Wayne Messam.
1 potential candidate withdrawn - Andrew Gillum.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Shadow1980 said:
I'm more focused on electability right now. I want a candidate who will be able to beat Trump. I don't care if they aren't the ideal progressive candidate. Anyone who wants Trump to be a single-term president needs to forget about litmus tests. Right now, Biden seems to be the best bet given the limited polling data we have at the moment. Yes, he's centrist to a fault, but a moderate Democrat is still infinitely better than Trump (or any other modern-day Republican, for that matter). Of course, that could change considerably as we get closer to the primaries. Maybe Bernie will end up being our best bet, or maybe one of the lesser-known candidates as they become better known. But we need someone that's going to appeal to the middle, not just to the base.

Despite the all the news this week, I still think the Democrats have the upper hand. The first rounds of polls after the release of AG Barr's summary of the Mueller Report show that Trump's approval ratings are still underwater, and if they don't improve over the next month or so, I think it's safe to say that his poor ratings had little to do with hypothetical links to Russia. He is still a boorish man-child that can't go a single day without making an ass of himself. He is still a very authoritarian-minded person who idolizes dictators and openly expresses a desire to punish his opponents for having the audacity to oppose him. His policies are still rubbish, and most are hated by a majority of Americans. He never revitalized the Rust Belt despite all of his posturing about bringing back manufacturing jobs. In general, it seems almost like he goes out of his way to be a polarizing figure. If his approval ratings continue to hover in the low 40s in the coming months, then the 2020 election will be the Democrats' to lose. And if his ratings don't improve appreciably within the next several months, then I doubt they will improve by this time next year when the primaries are in full swing. No President with net negative approval ratings has been re-elected since approval ratings have been a thing, and if Trump continues to be deeply unpopular into 2020, his chances of winning become ever more remote.

However, the Dems absolutely cannot rest on their laurels regardless of how weak and vulnerable Trump is as a candidate. They need to buckle down and take this election seriously. They need to accept whatever the final Mueller report says (assuming we ever get it), and if there's still isn't anything definitively demonstrating some kind or criminal or ethical malfeasance on Trump's part, then they need to absolutely drop that and focus on the rest of Trump's insufferable bullshit. Trump has done enough to earn the ire of a majority of Americans, and Democrats cannot squander this. All indications, from Trump's state-level approval ratings to hypothetical 2020 match-up polls to the results of the 2018 midterms, suggest that we've rebuilt the "Blue Wall" and that Arizona and Georgia will likely be in play after being reliably red for years, so they need to continue to focus on those areas to secure or flip them into the Blue column. We could even put Trump on the defensive in Texas.

Whoever the nominee is, they need to play it smart, and the base needs to turn out to vote this time and not sit at home or vote third-party if Bernie doesn't win in the primaries again. Defeating Trump should absolutely be our top priority next year, not ensuring our ideal progressive candidate becomes the nominee.

Biden has one fatal flaw, though: He tends to screw up on the way to the finish line, that's how he lost his primaries before. Obama choose him as VP to show that he has a thick skin after the comments he made over him (his comment was: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, ... I mean, that's a storybook, man."), and that could bite him hard if that gets digged out by right-wingers. And Trump is somebody who would exploit the hell out of his flaw, so not sure if he really would win against Trump in the end.

Bernie Sanders seems like a more probable winning candidate on the long run to me right now. Both him and Biden do win every national poll against Trump to date (which Warren, Harris or Booker can't claim), so he's certainly not just appealing the base. And he's known for staying steadfast to his convictions, so he won't flip-flop on issues, either, so that will be hard for Trump to play against him.