Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

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

Jumpin said:
tsogud said:

I don't like big money in politics period but I expect establishment Dems to take big money so I guess I can't begrudge them for that because I knew it from the beginning. But when you're running a campaign against wealthy big donors and then turn around and take their money in the general that's hypocritical and I'm sure most people will have a problem with it if that becomes the reality.

It's not hypocritical to play by the rules while campaigning to change the rules.

If I'm in a kickboxing match, and I am campaigning for rounds to be 3 minutes instead of 5 minutes, it doesn't mean I am going to stop fighting after 3 minutes every single round. Or if I want a ban to knees, it doesn't mean I am never going to throw a knee when those are rules - I would be at a disadvantage.

Bernie Sanders backs the abolition of the electoral college, do you think he should instead NOT base his campaign strategy around winning within the electoral college system?

The difference is Sanders doesn't have a choice. Warren has a choice to not take money from big donors and I hope she won't because I believe that would be the right choice.



 

Around the Network
tsogud said:
Jumpin said:

It's not hypocritical to play by the rules while campaigning to change the rules.

If I'm in a kickboxing match, and I am campaigning for rounds to be 3 minutes instead of 5 minutes, it doesn't mean I am going to stop fighting after 3 minutes every single round. Or if I want a ban to knees, it doesn't mean I am never going to throw a knee when those are rules - I would be at a disadvantage.

Bernie Sanders backs the abolition of the electoral college, do you think he should instead NOT base his campaign strategy around winning within the electoral college system?

The difference is Sanders doesn't have a choice. Warren has a choice to not take money from big donors and I hope she won't because I believe that would be the right choice.

Why does Bernie Sanders have no choice but to take money from big donors, but Elizabeth Warren does? I don't follow.

Anyway, that's not even the point of my post.

The point of my post is that candidates (like Bernie and Warren) are hamstringing themselves because of a simple campaign gimmick. They can play by the rules AND change them after.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:

Warren endorsed Clinton on June 9th, 2016. This was two days AFTER Clinton's victory on June 7th.

Wow. So Jason just flat-out lied then?



Jaicee said:
Jumpin said:

Warren endorsed Clinton on June 9th, 2016. This was two days AFTER Clinton's victory on June 7th.

Wow. So Jason just flat-out lied then?

No. The last primary wad DC on June 14th.



Jumpin said:
tsogud said:

The difference is Sanders doesn't have a choice. Warren has a choice to not take money from big donors and I hope she won't because I believe that would be the right choice.

Why does Bernie Sanders have no choice but to take money from big donors, but Elizabeth Warren does? I don't follow.

Anyway, that's not even the point of my post.

The point of my post is that candidates (like Bernie and Warren) are hamstringing themselves because of a simple campaign gimmick. They can play by the rules AND change them after.

Bernie doesn't have a choice participating in the electoral college process. Your comparison was flawed, I was simply pointing it out.



 

Around the Network
tsogud said:
Jumpin said:

Why does Bernie Sanders have no choice but to take money from big donors, but Elizabeth Warren does? I don't follow.

Anyway, that's not even the point of my post.

The point of my post is that candidates (like Bernie and Warren) are hamstringing themselves because of a simple campaign gimmick. They can play by the rules AND change them after.

Bernie doesn't have a choice participating in the electoral college process. Your comparison was flawed, I was simply pointing it out.

That's not what I said. Why does he have to base his campaign strategy around winning within the electoral college system? He most certainly doesn't have to do that, it's simply the smarter way to go about it given the current ruleset.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

jason1637 said:
Jaicee said:

Wow. So Jason just flat-out lied then?

No. The last primary wad DC on June 14th.

That's not relevant; Bernie only continued with the DC primary because he promised to, the race was already lost, and he lost the DC primary spectacularly; largely because its outcome was irrelevant and voters wanted to show support to Clinton. Clinton won a majority and the popular vote on June 7th, and Elizabeth Warren's endorsement was announced on June 9th.

What you're trying to argue is that there was some difference between Warren's endorsement and that of Bernie Sanders, which is purely fictional and a blatantly hypocritical narrative. The only difference is that Bernie was later.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

I like Bernie and Warren, but they have some really unpopular ideas lurking in their campaigns. Free healthcare for illegal immigrants, a 50% sales tax on ammo, decriminalizing illegal border crossings, and legal drug dens. These are all just terrible, and unpopular ideas.

Biden on the other hand doesn't have any of these extreme left ideas, but is just so damned old. He'll be 78 when sworn into office. And if he dies while in office, then that's a harder election in 2024 for his vice president, since incumbents have an advantage.

I really wish there were a more moderate, younger frontrunner out there. But I really don't think anybody other than Biden/Sanders/Warren stands a chance at this point.


I really wish there



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Jumpin said:
jason1637 said:

No. The last primary wad DC on June 14th.

That's not relevant; Bernie only continued with the DC primary because he promised to, the race was already lost, and he lost the DC primary spectacularly; largely because its outcome was irrelevant and voters wanted to show support to Clinton. Clinton won a majority and the popular vote on June 7th, and Elizabeth Warren's endorsement was announced on June 9th.

What you're trying to argue is that there was some difference between Warren's endorsement and that of Bernie Sanders, which is purely fictional and a blatantly hypocritical narrative. The only difference is that Bernie was later.

There is a difference. Warren had the chance to endorse Bernie earlier in the race but instead when the primaries were ending she endorsed Clinton which goes against what she had been fighting against.

Bernie endorsed Clinton after it was all said and done because his alternative was a Republican.

Basickly what i'm saying is that Warren had the opportunity to endorse Bernie and instead went to endorse Clinton at the end of the primary.



jason1637 said:

Warren and Sanders share more in common than Warren and Clinton. I don't like why it took her so long to make an endorsement and when she did she endorsed Clinton.

Looking back now that Trump is president yeah he is bad but during the election I liked his messaging of changing America by draining the swamp and ending endless wars. He hasnt done none of that now but at the time you couldnt really know unless he had power if that makes sense.

Jason, were you following politics as much back then as you are now?  I only ask because I get the impression you only heard Trump's rhetoric and nothing more. I really want to give you that benefit of the doubt.  I hope you were not aware of things like the Access Hollywood tape, the porn star payouts, the campaign finance violations, border wall Mexico bullshit, his known history of lies, not paying contractors, bigotry, racism, etc...

If all you heard was, "I'm going to make America great again" and" "drain the swamp", I'll give you a pass. But if you knew about the rest, how could you possibly believe his word?  It was well understood his intentions were to make the rich richer and fuck everybody else.  To be honest, find me a rich Republican that believes differently.  I'll wait.

Cerebralbore101 said:
I like Bernie and Warren, but they have some really unpopular ideas lurking in their campaigns. Free healthcare for illegal immigrants, a 50% sales tax on ammo, decriminalizing illegal border crossings, and legal drug dens. These are all just terrible, and unpopular ideas.

Unpopular with whom?  Republicans?  Older Democrats?  Fine.  The Republicans aren't going to vote for anyone but a Republican anyway and the older Democrats need to get out of politics because they are their own swamp.

We are now in the era of the Democratic Socialist for the left.  For the Democrats that don't like it, too bad.  It's your damn fault we're here.  You don't raise a generation on perpetual war, debt, shrinking middle class, drug wars, failing education, a housing crisis, stagnant wages, skyrocketing health care costs and expect us to say, "Please sir, may I have another".



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."