Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

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

Jaicee said:
HylianSwordsman said:
Yeah I'm really happy to hear Warren make the commitment to no big money in the general, that's really huge for me and does a lot towards rebuilding the trust I once had for her. I'm just glad Biden isn't the frontrunner anymore. Let's hope things stay that way. I'll be cheering, campaigning, and voting for Bernie until the bitter end, but Warren is a huge step up in frontrunner, from my last place choice to my second place choice. I hope if she gets the nom she picks Bernie as VP. I think his strategy of political revolution could still work well as VP. It functions off the bully pulpit, which he kind of already has simply by having a movement, but even the vice presidency is enough of a legitimacy boost that the media wouldn't be able to ignore him. I think the Dem establishment understands this to some degree, hence why they gave him the Chair position of the Outreach Committee. Making him VP would be that on steroids, even if it isn't the actual presidency, so he could end up being the most effective VP in history, considering most VPs accomplish little if anything, while Sanders could be the guy rallying the people behind Warren's plans, and holding her to account if she ever seems to stray towards the establishment.

You know, it's funny, back in 2015 when I'd first heard of Bernie Sanders shortly before he announced his candidacy, I immediately liked the guy, and was a huge Warren fan at the time. My immediate thought was that a Warren campaign should put Bernie on the ticket as VP, that was my dream team. As I got to know Sanders, and since Warren wasn't running, I figured a Sanders-Warren ticket could still work. It wasn't until much later that I started to distrust her at all, when she refused to endorse anyone before super Tuesday due to pressure from the establishment for having signed a petition encouraging Hillary to run, long before she knew Sanders would run. It just seemed like cowardice to me, at a time when the progressive movement felt ascendant. When it came out that the primary had been rigged, Hillary's campaign chair was behind it, and Hillary had corrupt financial connections to the party's national fundraising infrastructure, and Warren still endorsed her and didn't denounce any of it, it really pissed me off, it just felt so cowardly. Eventually though I realized as Sanders did when he endorsed her too that Trump was an existential threat to democracy and Hillary wasn't, so it wasn't simply a "lesser of two evils" choice anymore, it was an existential crisis. Even after that, I still had a bad taste in my mouth for Warren because I still felt like if she'd lent her progressive weight and credibility to Sanders before Iowa, he'd have won the primary and the general in a landslide, and we wouldn't be in this nightmare, and it still just felt like it was cowardice on her part. Since then, however, she's shown a lot of courage and started making major moves to fight hard for systemic change again, and reminded me why she was once my favorite politician. Like I said, I'm with Bernie to the bitter end, but with Warren's latest commitment against big money, and her new lead in the polls, I feel like we have a pretty exciting alternative to Bernie that actually looks like she'll win the primary. That can only be good news.

I was part of the campaign petitioning Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016. She was my first choice back then too. She was considered the de facto leader of the progressive movement in the Congress at the time. She was leading the fight against the TPP that Obama was hawking and just before that had galvanized resistance to a proposed budget deal reducing public welfare spending in a number of areas. Those were her two latest projects at the time, both of which notably involved standing up not to an unpopular Republican president (which is usually pretty easy for a member of the opposing party who holds a safe seat in the Senate to do), but to a fairly popular Democratic one, which I found particularly audacious and brave. I wound up voting for Bernie Sanders because she didn't run. I think there are a lot of people who thought like me about that out there and that's what you're seeing bear fruit now that they're both running. That's much of the reason I think that Warren is faring as well as she is (i.e. she always would have, I believe) and much of the reason why, in turn, Sanders is the first choice of only about one-third as many people as in 2016 so far this time around.

It captures what I mean to highlight that the most shared remark at Thursday's LGBTQ+ town hall broadcast on CNN was this one (perhaps the only non-PC comment of the whole evening), and also that simply using female pronouns to describe a hypothetical future president was good enough to win cheers and applause in the room by itself. There are a lot of women in this country who would very much like to live to see the day when it becomes possible for a woman to be president. I'm one of them. Many feel very strongly about that. I think it would bring a significantly different perspective than has yet been there to bear, and also encourage more women to run to public office in the future, including for the presidency, to set the precedent. Elizabeth Warren affirmatively scratches that itch not just by being female, but by tacitly reminding you she is from time to time in these sorts of ways. That adds something to a progressive policy recipe that Bernie Sanders by definition cannot offer, and it's something that's in much higher demand in the real world than it is here on this basically all-male message board that couldn't understand if it collectively tried.

PREACH BOO BOO

Also yeah her response was amazing. Simple and straight to the point but savage at the same time.



 

Around the Network

So my girl Tulsi announced she was considering boycotting the Dem debate - utter uproar by Neolibs on Twitter - like Trump level. Something like 30k replies to 34k likes. Jesus christ, like why do they care? She either has shills against her or she REALLY hit a nerve. Maybe both? XD

That said, I really hope she attends. She can do far more damage by calling the modern Dems on their bullshit than flipping them the bird by just not showing up.

In response to the recent discussion: I could not give less of a shit what's between your legs. Just be the best candidate. You do that - you win. At least with me you do!



DarthMetalliCube said:

So my girl Tulsi announced she was considering boycotting the Dem debate - utter uproar by Neolibs on Twitter - like Trump level. Something like 30k replies to 34k likes. Jesus christ, like why do they care? She either has shills against her or she REALLY hit a nerve. Maybe both? XD

That said, I really hope she attends. She can do far more damage by calling the modern Dems on their bullshit than flipping them the bird by just not showing up.

In response to the recent discussion: I could not give less of a shit what's between your legs. Just be the best candidate. You do that - you win. At least with me you do!

Yeah, I also think she should attend. I think it is important that her stance is heard in a national debate. I think that was actually her plan, I doubt that she thouht she had a chance to become the candidate. If she cannot reach debate level anymore, she probably will drop out and endorse Sanders or so.



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

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

DarthMetalliCube said:

So my girl Tulsi announced she was considering boycotting the Dem debate - utter uproar by Neolibs on Twitter - like Trump level. Something like 30k replies to 34k likes. Jesus christ, like why do they care? She either has shills against her or she REALLY hit a nerve. Maybe both? XD

That said, I really hope she attends. She can do far more damage by calling the modern Dems on their bullshit than flipping them the bird by just not showing up.

In response to the recent discussion: I could not give less of a shit what's between your legs. Just be the best candidate. You do that - you win. At least with me you do!

I'd like her to attend again so she can show how 2 faced Harris is again



     

Check out my lastest games review: Fast RMX and  Snipperclips: Cut it out Together

Yes. It would be such a tragedy if Tulsi doesn't attend. I was really looking forward to someone (hopefully Warren, I think that would anger the most people) calling Tulsi out for her absolutely shitty record and views.



Around the Network
morenoingrato said:
Yes. It would be such a tragedy if Tulsi doesn't attend. I was really looking forward to someone (hopefully Warren, I think that would anger the most people) calling Tulsi out for her absolutely shitty record and views.

Ah yes.. All those.. Horrible progressive views and records of Tulsi! wtf?

Warren? You mean the ex-republican who takes corporate donations and basically lied about her Native American heritage to get ahead (and a number of other things)? She needs to be the one being called out by Tulsi. Much like Kamala was.



If Gabbard is boycotting the debate, it may be because she's feeling like her campaign isn't getting the traction she wants and is considering ending it soon, and wants to do this to send a final message. She's already attended what will likely be the most watched debates and criticized the views of the party's war hawks, so she may feel that the biggest thing left for her to do is to criticize the primay's format itself, which she might feel she can do most effectively this way. Just my thoughts on why she might be choosing this strategy.



And sry to Warren supporters, it's really not my intention to start anything here. Warren actually has some decent qualities too and she'd at least be a distant fourth choice for me after Tulsi>Yang>Bernie heh..

I'm just frankly tired of all the dumb, unfair baseless smears I see such a smart and well-meaning candidate like Tulsi gets in the media, Twitter, etc. I just don't get it and it angers me. You start to see why there are so few decent people in politics as they all seem to get slagged the most.



DarthMetalliCube said:
And sry to Warren supporters, it's really not my intention to start anything here. Warren actually has some decent qualities too and she'd at least be a distant fourth choice for me after Tulsi>Yang>Bernie heh..

I'm just frankly tired of all the dumb, unfair baseless smears I see such a smart and well-meaning candidate like Tulsi gets in the media, Twitter, etc. I just don't get it and it angers me. You start to see why there are so few decent people in politics as they all seem to get slagged the most.

Speak for yourself. One person's "decent person in politics" is another person's smear target, and vice versa. You yourself in that post put Bernie under Tulsi and even Yang as if he's somehow less progressive than them, and you've smeared him in the past just because he felt it necessary to oppose Trump at all costs. Trump is corruption incarnate, and an existential threat to democracy itself, and all Bernie did was see that and try to do something about it, or at least not help Trump by splitting the anti-Trump vote. And you smear him for that. Bernie is my "one of the few decent people in politics" and he gets smeared all the time, from all sides, be it neoliberal, progressive, or...whatever you are, centrist libertarian I guess? I'm just saying, you're not innocent of smearing "decent people in politics" either. We all have different opinions, and that includes on who is a good politician and who isn't, who is beyond reproach, who could be better, who is the absolute worst, etc. Such is the nature of politics, unfortunately.

As for why there aren't more good people in politics, it's because good people tend not to be power hungry, and if they strive for power at all, it's so they can give it away to others. That, and the amount of cynicism and apathy in the world mean that no one would believe a person's good intentions if they saw them and no one would lift a finger to help them even if they did believe them, even enough to go out and vote.



HylianSwordsman said:
DarthMetalliCube said:
And sry to Warren supporters, it's really not my intention to start anything here. Warren actually has some decent qualities too and she'd at least be a distant fourth choice for me after Tulsi>Yang>Bernie heh..

I'm just frankly tired of all the dumb, unfair baseless smears I see such a smart and well-meaning candidate like Tulsi gets in the media, Twitter, etc. I just don't get it and it angers me. You start to see why there are so few decent people in politics as they all seem to get slagged the most.

Speak for yourself. One person's "decent person in politics" is another person's smear target, and vice versa. You yourself in that post put Bernie under Tulsi and even Yang as if he's somehow less progressive than them, and you've smeared him in the past just because he felt it necessary to oppose Trump at all costs. Trump is corruption incarnate, and an existential threat to democracy itself, and all Bernie did was see that and try to do something about it, or at least not help Trump by splitting the anti-Trump vote. And you smear him for that. Bernie is my "one of the few decent people in politics" and he gets smeared all the time, from all sides, be it neoliberal, progressive, or...whatever you are, centrist libertarian I guess? I'm just saying, you're not innocent of smearing "decent people in politics" either. We all have different opinions, and that includes on who is a good politician and who isn't, who is beyond reproach, who could be better, who is the absolute worst, etc. Such is the nature of politics, unfortunately.

As for why there aren't more good people in politics, it's because good people tend not to be power hungry, and if they strive for power at all, it's so they can give it away to others. That, and the amount of cynicism and apathy in the world mean that no one would believe a person's good intentions if they saw them and no one would lift a finger to help them even if they did believe them, even enough to go out and vote.

I don't necessarily consider Bernie less progressive, I just tend to support the policies of Tulsi and Yang moreso, and their ideals/beliefs tend to align closer to mine than Bernie's these days.

Yes, I express my opinions on candidates, which I have a right to do, and I'm also not a gigantic media conglomerate with the power to influence millions - so my responsibility in being impartial and getting my facts right is quite a bit less. And I also try to not discredit or slag others based on fabrications, fallacies, misrepresentations, etc which the media seems to love to do with Gabbard. 

I still don't appreciate Bernie selling out to the corporate establishment and basically kneel to Clinton (who embodies the Wallstreet, warmongering, Neolib establishment that he stood against). And to me he's beginning to play the fearmongering identity politics angle a bit too much for my tastes. Not that it's entirely baseless but it turns me off, and there's enough of that going on already in the D party. It's basically on record the party rigged the primary against him and instead of doing something about it he chose to rant and rave more about Trump while he ran off to his mansion. Left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

To me the difference between Bern and Hillary was at LEAST as big as Bern to Trump if not moreso. But he's supposed to step aside simply because they both have that (D) next to their name? I don't buy it. It's especially a headscratcher to me when I feel he would have had the better chance to beat Trump in the first place, not HRC! I partially get the splitting the vote thing but why isn't SHE ever viewed as "splitting the anti-Trump vote?" Bernie seemed to be the candidate of choice among the people.

But yes, at the end of the day, I still respect Bernie as a politician and least his record seems to show he's an ACTUAL progressive, and a consistant one, that genuinely wants to help the masses in America. He at least used to be my prefered candidate until Tulsi and Yang entered the picture. Good enough?