By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

uran10 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

I'd say that's true for virtually every lane right now

I'd disagree depending on what you meant. Warren has no reason to be in the race considering She's running on bernie's platform and doesn't go far enough. The "Center-left" (aka the secret right wingers) are pretty much everyone not named Bernie and Tulsi.

Tulsi's voice is needed for FP, Bernie is the man for DP. The corporate dems have enough representation and none of it is taking off.

Bernie: Progressive and easily the best domestically

Tulsi: Progressive and easily the bets foreign policy wise

Warren: Diet Bernie, doesn't go as far as bernie, is cosying up to the elite red flags everywhere on her "progressive" record

Everyone else: Probably should join the republican party, they're all right wingers, even if they don't want too admit it.

edit: I forgot yang and williamson, but they also have issues and probably the few I'd consider actual "center left"

I think it's a bit far to call these Dems "secret right wingers," but most of them (at least based off what I've heard and looked into for them) do seem to come from the Neolib corporatist breed who resemble the Bush/Cheney Neocons more than traditional liberalism, dressed up with a few social liberal views. Biden certainly falls under this category, Mayor Pete, Kamala, and even Warren seem to as well.

Tulsi is like the left's version of Ron Paul - seems to actually be center-left on the left-right paradigm but pretty significantly on the "bottom/south" or libertarian end of the political compass.

Yang is hard to pin down for me. I'd probably categorize him as more of an independent than anything. Certainly left-leaning but also coming from the business/entrepreneurial angle. seems to hold *some* more sensible, moderate views while his UBI can be perceived as a very very left wing neo-socialist sort of idea. 



 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

Around the Network
DarthMetalliCube said:
uran10 said:

I'd disagree depending on what you meant. Warren has no reason to be in the race considering She's running on bernie's platform and doesn't go far enough. The "Center-left" (aka the secret right wingers) are pretty much everyone not named Bernie and Tulsi.

Tulsi's voice is needed for FP, Bernie is the man for DP. The corporate dems have enough representation and none of it is taking off.

Bernie: Progressive and easily the best domestically

Tulsi: Progressive and easily the bets foreign policy wise

Warren: Diet Bernie, doesn't go as far as bernie, is cosying up to the elite red flags everywhere on her "progressive" record

Everyone else: Probably should join the republican party, they're all right wingers, even if they don't want too admit it.

edit: I forgot yang and williamson, but they also have issues and probably the few I'd consider actual "center left"

I think it's a bit far to call these Dems "secret right wingers," but most of them (at least based off what I've heard and looked into for them) do seem to come from the Neolib corporatist breed who resemble the Bush/Cheney Neocons more than traditional liberalism, dressed up with a few social liberal views. Biden certainly falls under this category, Mayor Pete, Kamala, and even Warren seem to as well.

Tulsi is like the left's version of Ron Paul - seems to actually be center-left on the left-right paradigm but pretty significantly on the "bottom/south" or libertarian end of the political compass.

Yang is hard to pin down for me. I'd probably categorize him as more of an independent than anything. Certainly left-leaning but also coming from the business/entrepreneurial angle. seems to hold *some* more sensible, moderate views while his UBI can be perceived as a very very left wing neo-socialist sort of idea. 

I agree with most of this but I'm not sure on Yang's UBI. UBI in and of itself is left leaning, but Yang's is dangerous. I'd say its a right wing gift served in a left wing box. His version of it atleast.



Follow my Gaming and Graphics Business on facebook and on Twitter:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101878997952596&ref=br_rs

https://twitter.com/KellyGGWD

morenoingrato said:
uran10 said:

Oh yes, let me explain since you think its a comfortable position. We have 2 parties a "left" leaning party and a right leaning party right? In reality we have a Center right party and a far right party. If we take that and say lefties belong in dem party and righties belong on repub they should join the repub. I wish I could find the overton window image that highlights this perfectly.

All I'm saying is this: We do not have a left leaning party, and since this country says 1 is left and 1 is right when there is many in between, the right leaners should go to the right party while the left leaners go to the left party. But yes, they're all right wingers with D next to their names or as americans would understand it, Repu with D next to their names

If you use the European system, sure, but the median American is much more conservative, and that's the reality.

Can you honestly, putting your hand in your heart, say that people like Harris are right wingers? Would changing all Senate Democrats for Ted Cruz make no difference in the overall standard of living of the American people?

Saw your video, thanks for the call-out. Pretty cruel views on Venezuela though. At least Bernie has some compassion.

It has nothing to do with europe or america. FDR was more left-wing than Bernie Sanders or AOC are today.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

It appears Tulsi Gabbard is abandoning M4A, instead calling her proposal "Medicare choice" basically she's leaning more in favor of a public option instead of a single payer system where private insurance would be abolished. I wouldn't vote for her anyway but to her progressive supporters who like M4A, this should give you pause.

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/09/25/tulsi-gabbard-2020-democrat-candidate

Last edited by tsogud - on 28 September 2019

 

uran10 said:

@HylianSwordsman @Jaicee @SpokenTruth @Mnementh I tend to come off Harsher than I intend when I post and such so I decided to go out and try to explain how I chose bernie and why I say the things I say. eg (calling someone a snake) Its obviously not the best way to start a discussion or get someone to re-evaluate their positions so I've made this video that was supposed to be short but ended up being 27 minutes long cause I ramble about why I support bernie first then tulsi.

The topics hit were: Corruption (Big money/ money in politics), M4A, Climate Change, Foreign Policy, Election integrity. If you find the time please take a listen as I feel like I explain it in a not as "mean" way and you can even understand that to me bernie himself is a compromise, the furthest I'm willing to compromise

Alright, just finished watching!

First of all, let me thank you for sharing your perspective at-length this way. It was definitely informative as to your perspective!

I was with you to an extent with the first part of the video, but the further it went along, the more narrow-minded it began to seem until ultimately reaching the part at the end where you seem to contend that the only reason anyone would disagree with you is because we're less educated/informed than you are or only consume mainstream media. No one could possibly look at the same set of facts and reach a different conclusion in your mind.

For me, the proliferation of drugs, and in particular opioids, is a major issue that I'd like to hear the candidates in general talk more about. One of the things I like about Elizabeth Warren specifically is that she has been known to. And not simply to talk about the issue, but to actually go out and visit rural America and communities heavily hit by the opioid epidemic. Rural parts of states like West Virginia and Utah that no Democrat has any chance of winning. Most people in my community (including me) have lost someone to opioids and/or other drugs in the last decade. I can't believe that that's actually been cited as an argument AGAINST her! That her willingness to visit rural America is actually seen as a sign that you can't trust her because Trump won these areas! *shakes head* I just don't think that very many politicians legitimately give a rat's ass about rural America or care what happens to people in small towns like mine. I think Warren cares more. She comes across that way to me.

Women's issues also matter to me a lot. A lot of women's health care providers are getting closed down right now because they include abortion as part of the services that they offer as just one example of what I mean. I trust a woman more implicitly on issues like that.

I also care a lot about issues like the Green New Deal and universal health care. Concerning health care, personally what I'd really like to see is something that nobody's running on: socialized medicine, as in to say a system similar to that of the UK's National Health Service. The candidates are all careful to insist that they have no interest in forcing anyone into different offices or in changing one's doctor or what have you, but the fact is that insurance only matters so much when there aren't hospitals or doctor's officers in your town! When it's an hour and a half drive, you don't go just willy nilly for things like preventive care (assuming you can afford a car). What we need here is construction. Road repairs, more schools, decent housing units that aren't in some level of disrepair, a hospital, this sort of thing. When it comes to insurance, I think many people in my area would just like to have it. I'm not actually nitpicky about whether a candidate supports M4A as a choice or in a single-payer form (though I prefer the latter), just as long as it becomes universally available, that's the important thing to me.

I've got no animosity toward Bernie Sanders. I voted for him in the 2016 primaries! There's just somebody I connect to a tiny bit more in this election is all. If Bernie won the nomination, I'd strongly support his campaign for president in the general election. I don't think I have all the same trust issues that you do, and that's probably part of why. I'm more inclined to believe that people can change. That Warren is a former Republican actually helps her with me. I think it makes her more effective at communicating with more conservative-minded people and helps her understand the importance of actually going to rural America. I'm also just used to the "progressive" Democrats running for president being right of Joe Biden's current platform, so...yeah, am not inclined to stress about overblown differences between Warren and Sanders.

Concerning foreign policy, I embrace a nuanced view. I'm against isolationism and against the kind of aggressive American imperialism we saw in the 2001-14 period as well. I strongly support the Syrian Democratic Forces though and have always been against abandoning them and against leaving Afghanistan completely without a peace deal in place. I consider myself a supporter of the pro-democracy revolutionary struggles we've seen erupt in places like Algeria, Sudan, Hong Kong, and yes Venezuela this year and think that we should take sides in those conflicts. I believe we should end military aid to Saudi Arabia and Israel and other countries that are waging aggressive war to colonize other countries (in this case, Yemen and Palestine). And I'm a strong supporter of NATO and the EU. And I definitely believe that Russia helped Trump get elected, incidentally. I'm surprised you don't.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 28 September 2019

Around the Network
Jaicee said:
uran10 said:

@HylianSwordsman @Jaicee @SpokenTruth @Mnementh I tend to come off Harsher than I intend when I post and such so I decided to go out and try to explain how I chose bernie and why I say the things I say. eg (calling someone a snake) Its obviously not the best way to start a discussion or get someone to re-evaluate their positions so I've made this video that was supposed to be short but ended up being 27 minutes long cause I ramble about why I support bernie first then tulsi.

The topics hit were: Corruption (Big money/ money in politics), M4A, Climate Change, Foreign Policy, Election integrity. If you find the time please take a listen as I feel like I explain it in a not as "mean" way and you can even understand that to me bernie himself is a compromise, the furthest I'm willing to compromise

Alright, just finished watching!

First of all, let me thank you for sharing your perspective at-length this way. It was definitely informative as to your perspective!

I was with you to an extent with the first part of the video, but the further it went along, the more narrow-minded it began to seem until ultimately reaching the part at the end where you seem to contend that the only reason anyone would disagree with you is because we're less educated/informed than you are or only consume mainstream media. No one could possibly look at the same set of facts and reach a different conclusion in your mind.

For me, the proliferation of drugs, and in particular opioids, is a major issue that I'd like to hear the candidates in general talk more about. One of the things I like about Elizabeth Warren specifically is that she has been known to. And not simply to talk about the issue, but to actually go out and visit rural America and communities heavily hit by the opioid epidemic. Rural parts of states like West Virginia and Utah that no Democrat has any chance of winning. Most people in my community (including me) have lost someone to opioids and/or other drugs in the last decade. I can't believe that that's actually been cited as an argument AGAINST her! That her willingness to visit rural America is actually seen as a sign that you can't trust her because Trump won these areas! *shakes head* I just don't think that very many politicians legitimately give a rat's ass about rural America or care what happens to people in small towns like mine. I think Warren cares more. She comes across that way to me.

Women's issues also matter to me a lot. A lot of women's health care providers are getting closed down right now because they include abortion as part of the services that they offer as just one example of what I mean. I trust a woman more implicitly on issues like that.

I also care a lot about issues like the Green New Deal and universal health care. Concerning health care, personally what I'd really like to see is something that nobody's running on: socialized medicine, as in to say a system similar to that of the UK's National Health Service. The candidates are all careful to insist that they have no interest in forcing anyone into different offices or in changing one's doctor or what have you, but the fact is that insurance only matters so much when there aren't hospitals or doctor's officers in your town! When it's an hour and a half drive, you don't go just willy nilly for things like preventive care (assuming you can afford a car). What we need here is construction. Road repairs, more schools, decent housing units that aren't in some level of disrepair, a hospital, this sort of thing. When it comes to insurance, I think many people in my area would just like to have it. I'm not actually nitpicky about whether a candidate supports M4A as a choice or in a single-payer form (though I prefer the latter), just as long as it becomes universally available, that's the important thing to me.

I've got no animosity toward Bernie Sanders. I voted for him in the 2016 primaries! There's just somebody I connect to a tiny bit more in this election is all. If Bernie won the nomination, I'd strongly support his campaign for president in the general election. I don't think I have all the same trust issues that you do, and that's probably part of why. I'm more inclined to believe that people can change. That Warren is a former Republican actually helps her with me. I think it makes her more effective at communicating with more conservative-minded people and helps her understand the importance of actually going to rural America. I'm also just used to the "progressive" Democrats running for president being right of Joe Biden's current platform, so...yeah, am not inclined to stress about overblown differences between Warren and Sanders.

Concerning foreign policy, I embrace a nuanced view. I'm against isolationism and against the kind of aggressive American imperialism we saw in the 2001-14 period as well. I strongly support the Syrian Democratic Forces though and have always been against abandoning them and against leaving Afghanistan completely without a peace deal in place. I consider myself a supporter of the pro-democracy revolutionary struggles we've seen erupt in places like Algeria, Sudan, Hong Kong, and yes Venezuela this year and think that we should take sides in those conflicts. I believe we should end military aid to Saudi Arabia and Israel and other countries that are waging aggressive war to colonize other countries (in this case, Yemen and Palestine). And I'm a strong supporter of NATO and the EU. And I definitely believe that Russia helped Trump get elected, incidentally. I'm surprised you don't.

(gonna be a counterpoint but bernie post)

Gonna start with the russia thing. I honestly don't believe they did anything to help trump, the reason being the lack of evidence and the timing every time something with russia gate comes up. To me it sounds more like hillary trying to blame everyone but herself for her loss.

I understand why you'd view a woman to be better on women's issues however we have bernie's record as a feminist here and how he's always advocated for it and supported women's rights. I believe in what I've seen, not what I've been promised on this and I've seen bernie walk the walk more than anyone else.

Also rural America. Bernie visits fairly often as well and he sits down with them and finds out why they voted trump and their issues. I've seen him do it and he's given real solutions as well. He's been with the people talking and listening and trying to help them as best as possible. That's why you see him joining strikes and picket lines and that's why I respect him and value him the most, cause he's not a "politician" he's an activist and honestly, bernie is simply put better on these issues you're listing than warren to me.

And I do think the differences are bigger than you're making them out to be. One is saying they'll defend joe Manchin, and tow the party lines, the other is saying if they're in the way I will make them budge on the issue or force them out of the way. Honestly speaking I understand people can be to the right of me and align with Warren more, but on the issues listed I honestly don't see how anyone could choose warren over bernie.

Like I said in the video the corruption aspect undermines everything she says she'll do. Public and private positions and the fact that she's cosying up the the party and the elites should be a red flag.

IDK, I don't see anything you posted that makes me see why you're for Warren more than Bernie other than trusting her more on Women's issues because she's a woman and while I can understand that sentiment, at the same time I'm watching at the one who was out there marching and fighting with women for their rights as well as fighting with the working class on strikes etc. IDK.

Can you elaborate why exactly Warren and not sanders for you? Like, I honestly can't wrap my mind around it. I'm going to assume the reason I can't wrap my mind around it is cause I just can't trust warren and I don't think she'll fight and signalling to the party that she wont fundamentally change or challenge the party or the system is enough for me to go no. As Bernie says, No Middle ground, and I think Warren is the very definition of that.



Follow my Gaming and Graphics Business on facebook and on Twitter:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101878997952596&ref=br_rs

https://twitter.com/KellyGGWD

uran10 said:

(gonna be a counterpoint but bernie post)

Gonna start with the russia thing. I honestly don't believe they did anything to help trump, the reason being the lack of evidence and the timing every time something with russia gate comes up. To me it sounds more like hillary trying to blame everyone but herself for her loss.

I understand why you'd view a woman to be better on women's issues however we have bernie's record as a feminist here and how he's always advocated for it and supported women's rights. I believe in what I've seen, not what I've been promised on this and I've seen bernie walk the walk more than anyone else.

Also rural America. Bernie visits fairly often as well and he sits down with them and finds out why they voted trump and their issues. I've seen him do it and he's given real solutions as well. He's been with the people talking and listening and trying to help them as best as possible. That's why you see him joining strikes and picket lines and that's why I respect him and value him the most, cause he's not a "politician" he's an activist and honestly, bernie is simply put better on these issues you're listing than warren to me.

And I do think the differences are bigger than you're making them out to be. One is saying they'll defend joe Manchin, and tow the party lines, the other is saying if they're in the way I will make them budge on the issue or force them out of the way. Honestly speaking I understand people can be to the right of me and align with Warren more, but on the issues listed I honestly don't see how anyone could choose warren over bernie.

Like I said in the video the corruption aspect undermines everything she says she'll do. Public and private positions and the fact that she's cosying up the the party and the elites should be a red flag.

IDK, I don't see anything you posted that makes me see why you're for Warren more than Bernie other than trusting her more on Women's issues because she's a woman and while I can understand that sentiment, at the same time I'm watching at the one who was out there marching and fighting with women for their rights as well as fighting with the working class on strikes etc. IDK.

Can you elaborate why exactly Warren and not sanders for you? Like, I honestly can't wrap my mind around it. I'm going to assume the reason I can't wrap my mind around it is cause I just can't trust warren and I don't think she'll fight and signalling to the party that she wont fundamentally change or challenge the party or the system is enough for me to go no. As Bernie says, No Middle ground, and I think Warren is the very definition of that.

Well let me start off by saying that if it doesn't seem like I have much against Bernie Sanders, that's because I don't. The Warren-versus-Sanders debate is essentially a non-debate in my mind. To my perception of it, they're more or less the same candidate. The "compelling" differences I see are that one is male and the other is female, one comes off as a better communicator and is able to reach multiple generations of people rather than just one, one of them spends more time in small town America than the other, one was the first to propose impeachment and the other slower up the uptake, one led out early on slavery reparations and the other waited much longer, one was the first to release plans on housing and the wealth tax, and so forth. Not exactly the most academic or compelling arguments. These are just things that cumulatively give me a general feeling of "I like her marginally better as a person and feel that she's doing most of the actual leading out here with new ideas in substance (at least relative to this election cycle anyway; 2016 was another story) despite claims she's just ripping off Sanders".

In terms of policy differences between the two, I frankly don't care whether the richest 5% who can most certainly afford to has to pay back their student loans or not. That's just not a level of policy difference I care about one way or the other. Those are the sorts of substantive policy differences that exist between Warren and Sanders and I'm just not interested in having out those kinds of petty arguments. I've seen you raise suspicions that Warren might not wind up backing single-payer health insurance as president, but rather a choice-based version of M4A. First, I've not seen compelling evidence to suggest that, and secondly, frankly, it doesn't even matter because the truth of the matter is that 1) any Democratic president WILL sign any bill that expands coverage and includes a universal Medicare feature, and 2) no Congress, however Democratic, is going to send a Democratic president a single-payer bill. Universally optional Medicare is what we plausibly wind up with, so I think we should be setting our expectations at realistic levels in that regard. These sorts of differences, both real and well mostly imagined, just aren't very important to me.

I'm also just not convinced that I can't trust anything Elizabeth Warren tells me because secretly she's bought and paid for. That simply doesn't match with the arc of her life, what she is known for, or how frankly the captains of industry broadly perceive her (example of that).

Finally, to address the matter of Russia's role in the 2016 election, in the choice between believing the opinion of every intelligence service we have on that, as well as the Mueller report, etc. etc. on the one hand and some random guy I met on the internet on the other, I'm going with the first option, especially considering the real-life evidence that...

1) Trump has attempted numerous times, in numerous ways, to offer Moscow policy concessions without reciprocation, ranging from attempts to unilaterally lift the economic sanctions that were imposed in protest of Russia annexing part of Ukraine in 2014 and maintaining a sustained occupation of the eastern part of the country ever since as well (effort thwarted by Congress) to suspending aid to Ukraine (effort thwarted by overwhelming pressure from Congress) to unilaterally cancelling most of the deterrence aid we introduced for Europe following the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and beyond. That AND...

2) ...having not been penalized the first time, he immediately thereafter tried the same game again against Joe Biden right now, which is the whole reason why there now exists a formal impeachment inquiry.

That all does, in fact, amount to compelling evidence in my view of it. You remark about the ostensibly curious timing of reports about the investigation. In my observation, Russiagate (if you will) was the headline story, in truth, pretty consistently from the time that James Comey was fired until a couple months after the completion of the Mueller report. It seemed pretty consistent to me. I'm not saying that's the level of national fascination with this subject that was actually merited (it became too much to sustain my attention after a point too), but I am saying that it seems to me like you are trying to justify Donald Trump's victory.

ALRIGHT, now if I may ask YOU a question, and this is concerning your stated interest in Tulsi Gabbard as a secondary option: I haven't seen you say anything to date about immigrants and refugees. You might have, but I've missed it if so. Tulsi Gabbard appears to be the (remaining) candidate in this race who is the most hostile toward immigrants and refugees, infamously voting in favor of the 2015 American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act that was designed to reduce refugee migration from war-torn Syria, for example, as well as opposing M4A coverage for undocumented immigrants as another example. Do these views align with your own?

Last edited by Jaicee - on 29 September 2019

Jaicee said:
uran10 said:

(gonna be a counterpoint but bernie post)

Gonna start with the russia thing. I honestly don't believe they did anything to help trump, the reason being the lack of evidence and the timing every time something with russia gate comes up. To me it sounds more like hillary trying to blame everyone but herself for her loss.

I understand why you'd view a woman to be better on women's issues however we have bernie's record as a feminist here and how he's always advocated for it and supported women's rights. I believe in what I've seen, not what I've been promised on this and I've seen bernie walk the walk more than anyone else.

Also rural America. Bernie visits fairly often as well and he sits down with them and finds out why they voted trump and their issues. I've seen him do it and he's given real solutions as well. He's been with the people talking and listening and trying to help them as best as possible. That's why you see him joining strikes and picket lines and that's why I respect him and value him the most, cause he's not a "politician" he's an activist and honestly, bernie is simply put better on these issues you're listing than warren to me.

And I do think the differences are bigger than you're making them out to be. One is saying they'll defend joe Manchin, and tow the party lines, the other is saying if they're in the way I will make them budge on the issue or force them out of the way. Honestly speaking I understand people can be to the right of me and align with Warren more, but on the issues listed I honestly don't see how anyone could choose warren over bernie.

Like I said in the video the corruption aspect undermines everything she says she'll do. Public and private positions and the fact that she's cosying up the the party and the elites should be a red flag.

IDK, I don't see anything you posted that makes me see why you're for Warren more than Bernie other than trusting her more on Women's issues because she's a woman and while I can understand that sentiment, at the same time I'm watching at the one who was out there marching and fighting with women for their rights as well as fighting with the working class on strikes etc. IDK.

Can you elaborate why exactly Warren and not sanders for you? Like, I honestly can't wrap my mind around it. I'm going to assume the reason I can't wrap my mind around it is cause I just can't trust warren and I don't think she'll fight and signalling to the party that she wont fundamentally change or challenge the party or the system is enough for me to go no. As Bernie says, No Middle ground, and I think Warren is the very definition of that.

Well let me start off by saying that if it doesn't seem like I have much against Bernie Sanders, that's because I don't. The Warren-versus-Sanders debate is essentially a non-debate in my mind. To my perception of it, they're more or less the same candidate. The "compelling" differences I see are that one is male and the other is female, one comes off as a better communicator and is able to reach multiple generations of people rather than just one, one of them spends more time in small town America than the other, one was the first to propose impeachment and the other slower up the uptake, one led out early on slavery reparations and the other waited much longer, one was the first to release plans on housing, and so forth. Not exactly the most academic or compelling arguments. These are just things that cumulatively give me a general feeling of "I like her marginally better as a person and feel that she's doing most of the actual leading out here with new ideas in substance (at least relative to this election cycle anyway; 2016 was another story) despite claims she's just ripping off Sanders".

In terms of policy differences between the two, I frankly don't care whether the richest 5% who can most certainly afford to has to pay back their student loans or not. That's just not a level of policy difference I care about one way or the other. Those are the sorts of substantive policy differences that exist between Warren and Sanders and I'm just not interested in having out those kinds of petty arguments. I've seen you raise suspicions that Warren might not wind up backing single-payer health insurance as president, but rather a choice-based version of M4A. First, I've not seen compelling evidence to suggest that, and secondly, frankly, it doesn't even matter because the truth of the matter is that 1) any Democratic president WILL sign any bill that expands coverage and includes a universal Medicare feature, and 2) no Congress, however Democratic, is going to send a Democratic president a single-payer bill. Universally optional Medicare is what we plausibly wind up with, so I think we should be setting our expectations at realistic levels in that regard. These sorts of differences, both real and well mostly imagined, just aren't very important to me.

I'm also just not convinced that I can't trust anything Elizabeth Warren tells me because secretly she's bought and paid for. That simply doesn't match with the arc of her life, what she is known for, or how frankly the captains of industry broadly to her (example of that).

Finally, to address the matter of Russia's role in the 2016 election, in the choice between believing the opinion of every intelligence service we have on that, as well as the Mueller report, etc. etc. on the one hand and some random guy I met on the internet on the other, I'm going with the first option, especially considering the real-life evidence that...

1) Trump has attempted numerous times, in numerous, to offer Moscow concessions without reciprocation, ranging from attempts to unilaterally lift the economic sanctions that were imposed in protest of Russia annexing part of Ukraine in 2014 and maintaining a sustained occupation of the eastern part of the country ever since as well (effort thwarted by Congress) to suspending aid to Ukraine immediately (effort thwarted by Congress) to unilaterally cancelling most of the deterrence aid we introduced for Europe following the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and beyond. That AND...

2) ...having not been penalized the first time, he immediately thereafter tried the same game again against Joe Biden right now, which is the whole reason why there now exists a formal impeachment inquiry.

That all does, in fact, amount to compelling evidence. You remark about the ostensibly curious timing of reports about the investigation. In my observation, Russiagate (if you will) was the headline story, in truth, pretty consistently from the time that James Comey was fired until a couple months after the completion of the Mueller report. It seemed pretty consistent to me. I'm not saying that's the level of national fascination with this subject that was actually merited (it became too much to sustain my attention after a point too), but I am saying that it seems to me like you are trying to justify Donald Trump's victory.

Russia thing: It was a money maker, whistle blowers spoke about it and they said if they really had anything on him it wouldn't have taken that long, on top of that every time new evidence came out it was quickly debunked even though corporate media kept acting as they it was not and ran with debunked sources for months and months until Mueller's report pretty much said Trump didn't work with russia to win the presidency, he's just an idiot who obstructed justice in an investigation where he would have been found innocent of what it was about. I'm more or less convinced Trump was afraid of his business practices with Russia and his ties there being revealed, cause let's be honest here. This man has not run his businesses on the fully legal side and he's got connections to the mafia. Before running for president he was trying to set up a business over in russia, I think it was another hotel or something along those lines and that continued while he was running for president (emoluments impeachment would have worked on day 1 btw, we had all the evidence). On top of that, the way they said the russia's influenced our election is funny, cause I'm sure 300 memes that less than 3k people saw flipped them from hillary to trump. Here's the thing, do I think russia tried to influence our elections? yes. Do I think they worked with trump like the media and russia gate claims? no. Putin has always been open about who he supports for President and will always work for what's best for Russia. He went Obama twice then went for trump all for the same reasons. The opponent was basically saying they'll restart the cold war. From how I saw Russiagate and how I saw it used, Hillary needed a cop out to explain her loss and not to accept the blame, The Democratic party, the media and the establishment no a whole did not want to be introspective on why they lost. They acted as tho they did everything in their power but Americans are so deplorable that they went for the racist. As someone who watched the entire thing unfold through multiple lenses, saw claim after claim of Russia did this just to see it get debunked but see people running with it still. Yea.. I don't see compelling evidence of it. On top of that the evidence you're providing is the little bit of trump trying to help russia, when in reality this man has been one of the most anti russian presidents yet. Everytime he did something that hurt russia, the media went "it's a cover". And Trump being a man baby kept getting goaded into bad policy against russia. That's just how I see it tho. Also on that Biden thing, Trump is literally just doing what Hillary Clinton did to him back (both are wrong.

That was longer that I cared for it to be, now on to the part I really care about it. Now I feel like we're getting somewhere.

We'll disagree on impeachment, I'll just say that from the start. I'm not for it. 2020 is next year, and he will not be removed from office. It will 100% die in the senate. I'm not saying he didn't commit crimes, I'm saying that this will fire up his base even more, and they'll be galvanized come november making it harder to defeat him in 2020, which is already hard cause he's an incumbent. I think voting him out is a better or that impeachment open on EVERYTHING, not limiting the scope to protect an elite. If all his crimes are out in the public for them too see since this would be broadcast it could change public opinion and hurt him. BUT THEY'RE ALREADY SCREWING IT Up. The dems are just.... not good at this. They really aren't.

On reparations, I'm iffy on this one. I honestly don't think we're having an honest conversation about it. Everyone says they're for it, but what exactly are they for? Bernie asked what was meant by reparations and if it was just giving out checks, he wasn't exactly for it. There are institutional issues that have not been addressed that would make that null and void and I think reparations somewhat falls under reforming our entire system that persecutes african americans more. As a black man myself, I don't like how everyone says yes, without explaining what they mean. It feels 100% like pandering and I hate it, especially when you see how the question was pedalled out, who was asked it and how it was asked. I'm closer to bernie on this, I do believe there should be reparations of some kind, but explain what you mean by it, how should it be done? I don't want to hear a bold yes to appeal to my race when you have no plan to institute it. That's pandering.

And Now that you've gone into Policy that has been released, time for my favourite fact of this election cycle. 70% of Warren's legislation and ideas and just being thrown out this election cycle while bernie has been on this for 40 years. He's been talking about homelessness and housing well before Warren decided to switch from a republican to a democrat and his housing bill goes much further and has a legitimate shot at ending homelessness in america. Hers does not. This is why the claims she's just ripping on sanders exists because everyone of her plans has existed in some form or been suggested in some form by bernie AND they've been better when he suggested them. There was only 1 thing Warren was showing up Bernie on policy wise and that was student debt, she had improved on his original plan and he ended up coming back with an even better plan.

On M4A single payer, she just came out and called the bill a framework. She called a 200 page bill a framework and got called out hard. So while you say any dem would sign (I beg to differ considering how many are bought by big pharma) I'm here with some political strategy. Most bills get watered down, Obama care got it, and most likely single payer would get it. If we start from the concession point and it gets watered down more (which it would) we'd end up with another Obama care like solution. On top of that, Warren's daughter works for a health insurance company and is one of the big shots in charge. It may not seem like much but, that's also something that would influence her on not supporting m4a besides everything that she's already said. I also disagree with you somewhat on congress sending a single payer bill to the president's desk. A big part of this comes again from big money and corruption. A lot of these politicians are looking to advance in there career and big money seems to be the only way to stay elected and keep elected. The only way you get the big money is if you do their biddings aka fight against things like lowering drug price and M4a (btw, on drug prices paying 200 a year vs 6k a year is a lot, that's a big difference and something most can afford). As I've stated before with the bully pulpit and with the shift of Americans being more involved in the political process and them getting sick and tired of big money interest buying politicians we'd have a president bernie putting that on full blast. Politicians would basically be put in this position under bernie with a M4a bill. 1) Keep taking big money and go against the will of the people and be rallied against by a popular president, and face a primary opponent (on the dem side) or face an opponent fully endorsed by Bernie who doesn't take the corp cash and has people support. 2) Support the bill and vote for it to avoid the wrath of the people and president sanders. 3) try to pull a booker and talk out of the two sides of your mouth and get crushed by the people. It basically changes the fight from big money keeps you in power thus relying on doing their bidding to doing their bidding would result in the public rallying against you and no amount of money would change that. This is an ideal situation and not how it will always play out but this is what Bernie has specifically stated he would do. In other words, I see him willing to fight for it, so that whatever version we get at the end of the day is the best possible one with the least compromise. On the other hand Warren has indicated she wouldn't do these things and she tends to be late to the fights (standing rock says hi).

And on that CNBC thing, I'm cynical and I also look at where the money is coming from. So 2 points on this, the first is the obvious one. She's taken wall street money in the past and some of her staffing positions are knee deep in dark money influences and wall street cash. That's not someone whose going to fight wall street or someone that wall street is truly afraid of. Point 2, and boy does this one seem funny in hindsight. Similar articles were put out regarding wall street president Obama when he was running. They claimed to be afraid of him and yet he cosied up to them in the end. Warren's campaign is running so many parallels to obama that I'm not just gonna let take them at their word but look at where their money is going.

So Yes, I think I've addressed everything you posted here. But yes, if you're talking about this election cycle where they're trying to say why you should choose them and only looking at this cycle then you're gonna get obama'd. Let's go through some quick plan and things that bernie has been talking about for far longer than any politician.

Bernie had been suggesting and floating a wealth tax since 1997. He's been talking about Climate change since the 1980s, He's been talking about the MIC since the 1990s, probably earlier . He's been talking abut the Prison IC since the 1980's. He's been talking about the persecution of the black man for even longer and got arrested for marching with MLK.

In fact, let me let one of his campaign staffers do the talking for me. Warren Gunnels has worked with Bernie for over 20 years and he had a nice chat on the Hill Rising about all he did a while back. Let me give you a thread that would pretty much show you that Bernie has been fighting for all these "plans" before Warren and continues to push and go further than Warren when it comes to this.

The main reason I'm gunning so hard against Warren right now is because I see her doing a lot of the Obama tricks and I know there are some 2016 berners who have switched (and you fall into that category as you've stated). I think you're very much gettable based on where you stand politically so that's why I'm trying to highlight the differences as much as possible. Consistency matters. One more thing before I finish this post. I want you to read this thread, I wish I bookmarked more of these but I tend to read, like retweet and move on losing links and articles that would help my argument or simply put highlight where my evidence comes from. This is pretty much the Not Warren, Bernie thread. Its a thread on Warren vs Bernie highlighting obviously Bernie. Hopefully it can convince you that the differences aren't as small as you think they are. Either way, I'm happy we had this discussion. I have a better understanding of why you support warren, and at the same time, it just convinces me that the bernie camp can definitely convince you to vote for Bernie over Warren.

Last edited by uran10 - on 29 September 2019

Follow my Gaming and Graphics Business on facebook and on Twitter:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101878997952596&ref=br_rs

https://twitter.com/KellyGGWD

There is too much in the above post for me to properly respond to. I just don't have the energy, tbh. In fact I don't even want to try and quote it because of all the pics; it would look too messy and make this reply post appear needlessly long. I'll just get right to the most key thing:

"The main reason I'm gunning so hard against Warren right now is because I see her doing a lot of the Obama tricks and I know there are some 2016 berners who have switched (and you fall into that category as you've stated). I think you're very much gettable based on where you stand politically so that's why I'm trying to highlight the differences as much as possible. Consistency matters."

Consistency matters less to me than listening. Over the course of the campaign season, I've noticed that Sanders and Warren embrace different styles that reflect their different strengths. Bernie leans heavily on his stump speeches while Liz does more town halls. The first of those things tells me of someone who loves being the center of attention and sharing his ideas with others. The second tells me of someone who prefers to have a dialogue with others; two-way communication. That in turn tells me how it is that Warren has changed her views over the years, from being a registered Republican decades ago to becoming the favorite choice of progressive Democrats for president today: by listening to and learning from others.

That's just something I wanted to highlight that's relevant to me. On a lot of the other stuff you went through, I think we just simply disagree. Especially on the practicality of impeachment. No president who has been impeached or (in Nixon's case) resigned to avoid impeachment has either won re-election or seen their party through to a subsequent electoral victory as applicable. Johnson. Nixon. Clinton. None of them. It's never worked out well for their parties after the fact in the next election. Impeachment is NOT good for anyone politically. It does tend to weigh on the minds of voters as a relevant factor. In fact, now that an impeachment inquiry has actually been opened, public opinion already appears to be changing. According to a new poll by PBS and NPR, 49% of Americans support the opening of the inquiry, while 46% remain opposed, so it's now above-water in public support according to this new survey. Similarly, according to a new Politico/Morning Consult poll from this last week, Americans are now evenly split on the subject with 43% approving and 43% disapproving. Both polls mark a notable uptick in public support for impeachment compared to their previous iterations. (Data.)

Last edited by Jaicee - on 29 September 2019

So I just wanted to highlight some interesting specs indicated in the latest national survey by the Economist and YouGov, which has Warren and Biden tied at 25% support each among other things (which, as I've already pointed out, isn't the first national poll out this last week to show Warren faring at least as well as Biden):

1. According to this survey data, most current Bernie Sanders supporters voted for Donald Trump in 2016 (see page 187), which isn't true of the other two leading Democratic candidates (see pages 186-7). This frankly shocked me! I knew there was a degree of overlap of course (I mean, all the leading Democrats have some overlapping support from Trump voters), but I thought it was more like 25-30% of Bernie supporters, not more than half! I feel like that explains...a lot of what we've seen recently out of that camp. A lot.

2. The preferences of low-income voters have been a source of dispute on this thread a lot. According to page 186 of this survey, Biden currently leads among voters making less than $50,000 a year (27%), followed by Warren (21%) and Sanders (18%). Warren and Sanders regularly poll about even among poor and working class voters, though Biden splits the difference with heavily lopsided support among older black voters in particular (who disproportionately fall into the poor and low-income categories) owing substantially to having served as Obama's VP. When you combine the working class support for Warren and Sanders though, it's easy to see that progressives are actually more popular with poorer voters at this time overall (certainly including me).

Just thought those things were worth highlighting.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 29 September 2019