Democrats 2020

[angelo]

Nowhere is the left's collective insanity more prominently displayed than in it's fanatical hatred of President Trump. Leftists hated Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes, and you might be surprised to review the level of vitriol they leveled at each of them, but their antipathy for the Trump is radically more intense. He is their worst enemy, but they hide behind their disdain for his his crudeness and tweets to disguise their greater outrage at his conservative policies and counter punching.

If only the Trump would do their bidding, it's guaranteed they wouldn't have the slightest problem with his manners. If only he eliminated borders and put every other country first and above America, something like Obuma did with his apologetic speech in Cairo just a few short weeks after his victory where the Muzzie Brotherhood had front row seats, all would be fine. There would be no attempt at removing a democratically elected President intermediately had they had the numbers in the House the day after he moved into the White House.

This Dem insanity will devastate their party for perhaps more than a decade. Deservedly so!

 

[TV and credit cards]

What would a Sanders presidency do to the electorate of this nation? How would the Trumkins respond and conduct themselves over the next four years with a Sanders presidency? In happier times I'd be all in for a President Sanders. But these are not happy times. These next four years may be when we are most concerned with stability. It's all well and fine to be passionate about economic and social justice but without stability, it's all for nothing. Those of us in the center or who tend to gravitate toward the center is all that is holding this country together. Getting even with the Trumpkins by countering with the Bernie Bros isn't going to do it.

And no, this is not a cowardly post, an appeal to mediocrity. It is an appeal that we not let or emotions govern.

 

[angelo]

What would a Sanders presidency do to the electorate of this nation? How would the Trumkins respond and conduct themselves over the next four years with a Sanders presidency? In happier times I'd be all in for a President Sanders. But these are not happy times. These next four years may be when we are most concerned with stability. It's all well and fine to be passionate about economic and social justice but without stability, it's all for nothing. Those of us in the center or who tend to gravitate toward the center is all that is holding this country together. Getting even with the Trumpkins by countering with the Bernie Bros isn't going to do it.

And no, this is not a cowardly post, an appeal to mediocrity. It is an appeal that we not let or emotions govern.

Unless one wishes to follow the Chavez/Maduro road to ruin.

 

[Rhea]

Like the public defender who's friends with the county judge, they only fight battles they know they'll lose, and then only when the cameras are rolling. So who wins when they win?

If we get a genuine liberal, however pussy, okay. I'll hold my nose and vote. But if it's a bougie twat who has no interest in anything other than business as usual with a polite but meaningless patrician smile but no plans at all for change, then sorry. No. I won't vote for someone I don't support, just because I don't like their opponent.

Here's a theory I've heard on that:

There is a silver lining to Trump's presidency. He's shown you many "presidential traditions" that you failed so far to put into law... and now you just might. And he's in some ways burned down some of the old system, so something new can be rebuilt. I know people who wanted a Trump win as a "burn it all down" chaos candidate. They got what they wanted, and so some extend that's happened, as we now see Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist leading in the polls for the Democrats. Had Hillary won in 2016 it is very unlikely that progress would have been made leftward that quickly. Trump acted as the ultimate rallying cry to wake up many on the left. Or so the theory goes.

I remember when Nader made this argument against Bush II. He said that we should not vote for Gore because he wasn’t green enough, and that if we got Bush, that would educate everyone and shock them into sensisbly voting for Greens and Socialists.

So his supporters did. And we got Bush, and hundreds of thousands of people are DEAD in Iraq because his cabinet of warmongers pushed an unjust war on them.

I. Am. NOT. Okay. With. That.

I am not okay with Trump’s lifetime judges, I am not okay with his repeal of water protections. I am not okay with his repeal of labor protections and his destruction of the education system and his promotion of conservative judges to over-incarcerate the poor. I am not okay with his destruction of our alliances. I am not okay with his destructive policies against the working poor. I am horrified by the trauma to thousands of children torn from their parents, many forever.

You may feel like your place of privilege suggests that “burning it all down to build it again” is a worthy goal and all of the people who DIE or the children who lose their parents are a price you cheerfully pay for your purity purge. I see you say that you are fine with that, and would even, if you were a member of my country, act to promote that.

I find that monstrous. I do not understand it.
I guess I understand how people live with that, as evidenced by this discussion. They don’t mention it, they don’t talk about the harm done, they never acknowledge the ones who suffer from this approach. They never look those children in the eye.

I cannot be that person.

 

[Rhea]

Nowhere is the left's collective insanity more prominently displayed than in it's fanatical hatred of President Trump.

I can see why you would use the word “hate” here. It’s one that you feel, perhaps? But you’ve been told many many times that those you are talking to here do not “hate Trump”. We are appalled by his policies, his actions, his judges and his corruption.

But you know that. And still you continue to pull out the “you’re just mean haters” canard, so that you never have to discuss the details of what we actually are fighting against.
We see you.

Leftists hated Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes

I voted for Reagan. Until I learned more about him.

, and you might be surprised to review the level of vitriol they leveled at each of them, but their antipathy for the Trump is radically more intense.

For Trump’s policies and actions, which are destructive and harmful.

He is their worst enemy

He is the biggest danger.

, but they hide behind their disdain for his his crudeness and tweets to disguise their greater outrage at his conservative policies and counter punching.

We do not hide behind that, as you can see in this thread, we talk about his policies and actions, which are destructive.
But you knew that.
You can’t make an argument about what we are really saying, so you just make something up.
No one in the thread is talking about his crudeness. But you are claiming we are. How do you feel about being someone who makes claims that are clearly not true? Are you comfy with that? Are you comfortable displaying your “fanatical hatred” of leftists? Are you comfortable displaying this “level of vitriol” against the left?

Projection is such a very visible thing.

If only the Trump would do their bidding, it's guaranteed they wouldn't have the slightest problem with his manners.

Your absurd language “guaranteeing” our reaction is laughable when you can read our very words about other politicians.
But, you know that.
We see you.

If only he eliminated borders and put every other country first and above America, something like Obuma did with his apologetic speech in Cairo just a few short weeks after his victory where the Muzzie Brotherhood had front row seats, all would be fine. There would be no attempt at removing a democratically elected President intermediately had they had the numbers in the House the day after he moved into the White House.

Well, isn’t that a perfect display of the shit-stirring, fabricated, untrue talking points from FOX and the Russian propaganda farms.

This Dem insanity will devastate their party for perhaps more than a decade. Deservedly so!

Which is why the 2018 elections turned out the way they did, yes?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here's a theory I've heard on that:

There is a silver lining to Trump's presidency. He's shown you many "presidential traditions" that you failed so far to put into law... and now you just might. And he's in some ways burned down some of the old system, so something new can be rebuilt. I know people who wanted a Trump win as a "burn it all down" chaos candidate. They got what they wanted, and so some extend that's happened, as we now see Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist leading in the polls for the Democrats. Had Hillary won in 2016 it is very unlikely that progress would have been made leftward that quickly. Trump acted as the ultimate rallying cry to wake up many on the left. Or so the theory goes.

I remember when Nader made this argument against Bush II.

Not at all the same. Bush 2 wasn't seen as a chaos candidate that would burn the whole system down. He was seen as another (rather dumb) establishment Republican, and the second from a lineage of 2 Presidents.

Trump was the opposite. He was a celebrity reality tv blowhard that nobody associated with the establishment Republicans. He was a hand grenade; a middle finger by voters sick of the status quo to the establishment. He was a "burn it all down" pick.

I see you say that you are fine with that, and would even, if you were a member of my country, act to promote that.

I find that monstrous. I do not understand it.

This is a rather offensive and over the top strawman. Nobody said they support killing anybody etc. Not Politesse. Not I.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's a theory I've heard on that:

There is a silver lining to Trump's presidency.

There is absolutely no silver lining of the Trump Presidency, and one needs their head stuffed deep... in to the ground to make such a ridiculous statement. Well, maybe not statement... that'd be second place to. "Had Hillary won in 2016 it is very unlikely that progress would have been made leftward that quickly." I mean, seriously. Who could actually claim to be paying attention to what has happened and say something this dumb?

If nothing else, Trump replaced two SCOTUS Justices cementing a far-right Supreme Court, which will greatly inhibit any semblance of a shift to the left. UHC, almost no chance in hell now with this SCOTUS. If we include the else, Trump (or should I say the idiots that elected him) has made Treaty development extremely hard... oh and another deal with Iran? Yeah, that ain't happening. And furthermore, while we would seemingly be able to again reestablish international ties with our allies if a Democrat becomes President again, the ability for other nations to trust the US over the long term has been severely debilitated.

To make matters worse? NPR had a terribly depressing story on about a farmer in Iowa that is suffering from Trumps tariffs and ethanol policy changes. And after all of the struggles caused directly by Trump's unilateral decisions, the farmer (the guy who busts his ass all the time to make a living) doesn't trust Biden (because of Trump), thinks most of the Dems are crazy about spending (except maybe Klobuchar). In other words, the hard working laborer was seriously considering re-electing the reckless fool in the White Huose... because the right-wing propaganda machine has done a perfect job lying to him.

So silver lining? There is nothing good about the Trump Presidency, there is no silver lining. This isn't the Champions League Final in 2018, where the issues with a goalkeeper will lead to a couple player changes on the squad and lead to a Champions League championship the next year. About the only decent thing that can happen now is the US "fires" him in November 2020. And yeah, that would be gratifying as all heck. But that doesn't come close to undoing the damage he has created.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So silver lining? There is nothing good about the Trump Presidency, there is no silver lining.

I agree with you that Hillary would have been better than Trump winning, but there is always a silver lining. There is always some good hidden in there with the bad, even when the bad is truly horrible. And it could always be worse. If you think Trump is the worst it can get, think again. Imagine Trump's lack of morals but he's competent and intelligent. That could be your future if you don't learn from the Trump experience as a nation. I'm shocked at the things Trump has been able to do and the questions that have been asked about is he able to. Things that a leader of a nation in a democracy clearly should not be able to. Answer those questions correctly and put them into law already. You should be embarassed as a country that you haven't already done so.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I don't like Trump, but I'm also not naive enough to believe that he is the only bad actor in Washington. Beating the bad guys is not enough for me, if it comes at the cost of entirely neutralizing the good guys. If the DNC can impeach a president, but can't bring themselves to field a candidate that the American people actually like and who gives a flying shit about their lives, they need to be replaced by someone who can. We would have a much better Supreme Court situation right now if the Democrats had had the balls to fight for it when they still had leverage. Trump is a brainless clown baby with powerful friends; he is not, and could not be for sheer lack of intellect, to blame for the thus-far-total failure of the Democrats to fight for democratic and constitutional rule in this country. So they're on pretty thin ice with me to begin with. Like the public defender who's friends with the county judge, they only fight battles they know they'll lose, and then only when the cameras are rolling. So who wins when they win?

If we get a genuine liberal, however pussy, okay. I'll hold my nose and vote. But if it's a bougie twat who has no interest in anything other than business as usual with a polite but meaningless patrician smile but no plans at all for change, then sorry. No. I won't vote for someone I don't support, just because I don't like their opponent.

^ This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So silver lining? There is nothing good about the Trump Presidency, there is no silver lining.

I agree with you that Hillary would have been better than Trump winning, but there is always a silver lining.

Okay, you clearly only read the part you quoted. The SCOTUS nominees are etched in stone! Liberals are scared to death for Ginsburg health because her being replaced would make SCOTUS FAR Far right for decades. That has a level of influence on our nation you clearly do not appreciate.

There is always some good hidden in there with the bad, even when the bad is truly horrible. And it could always be worse.

There is never a "silver lining" of "it could be worse". It can always be worse. We don't get to take pleasure that we will never have UHC now, but at least Armageddon wasn't unleashed after Iran fired missiles at US troops in response to a reckless attack on Soleimani. Or, at least liberals aren't being marched to ovens yet.

*snip*

Pretty much just victim blaming at this point.

 

[Elixir]

If you were going to vote for Bernie, presumably because economic justice is a big thing for you, voting instead for a billionaire who bought his way into the nomination is an awfully bitter pill to swallow. Throw me in with the "depends" crew. Biden, I could live with. But not "any Democrat". The DNC has done nothing to earn my unconditional loyalty.

I'm not in the "any democrat" column, rather the "any body except Trump's" column. No loyalty to the Dem party whatsoever.

Don't forget that any Democrat who beats Trump gets to set the tone for the party for decades.

I doubt that will be the case unless whoever supplants Cheato becomes wildly popular, which seems like a long shot at this point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No. I won't vote for someone I don't support, just because I don't like their opponent.

Yes... and getting things like UHC and what not is not possible because of the shape of the Supreme Court. Thanks for participating in adult politics.

 

[Politesse]

I don't like Trump, but I'm also not naive enough to believe that he is the only bad actor in Washington. Beating the bad guys is not enough for me, if it comes at the cost of entirely neutralizing the good guys. If the DNC can impeach a president, but can't bring themselves to field a candidate that the American people actually like and who gives a flying shit about their lives, they need to be replaced by someone who can. We would have a much better Supreme Court situation right now if the Democrats had had the balls to fight for it when they still had leverage. Trump is a brainless clown baby with powerful friends; he is not, and could not be for sheer lack of intellect, to blame for the thus-far-total failure of the Democrats to fight for democratic and constitutional rule in this country. So they're on pretty thin ice with me to begin with. Like the public defender who's friends with the county judge, they only fight battles they know they'll lose, and then only when the cameras are rolling. So who wins when they win?

If we get a genuine liberal, however pussy, okay. I'll hold my nose and vote. But if it's a bougie twat who has no interest in anything other than business as usual with a polite but meaningless patrician smile but no plans at all for change, then sorry. No. I won't vote for someone I don't support, just because I don't like their opponent.

I'm as confused as Rhea over the kind of logic that, confronted with two evils, chooses to abstain rather than vote for the lesser. It's not that I'm surprised, but I can't make sense of what the ultimate goal is--to create a better world by letting Trump have a second term to teach moderate Democrats a lesson? I would far rather have a moderate Republican as president for the next four years than Donald Trump, the absolute worst president in the history of the United States. Bloomberg? Hell, yes, rather than Trump. Yang? Hell yes, rather than Trump (although I might need to barf a few times.) Gabbard? Well, sure. Rather than Trump. Even Spirit Guru Williams, if that were my only alternative to Trump. I would even prefer (and I'm really trying to keep my dinner down now) Mike Pence over Donald Trump. Trump is an existential threat to us all.

If you vote for the lesser evil every time, the powers that be will never feel the need to do good. You know why Americans don't vote? They feel, quite correctly, that the election has little to do with them, their lives, or their needs. This doesn't have to be true, and wouldn't be true if they all voted. But these corrupt centrist types would not like how everyone would vote if they became truly politically engaged. "Business as usual" in Washington is designed to hurt the average American, and Trump wouldn't have a political career if people weren't sick of being told what's best for them by people who knoe nothing about their lives.

I'm easy to understand. Just imagine that you have principles, and that one of those principles is a free and fair election. If Steyer or Bloomberg have a sudden, miraculous surge righg before the primary, the American public will rightly smell bullshit. I'm not willing to endorse any system, however corrupt, just to end the career of a jumped up reality star the GOP finds to be a convenient distraction. This pholosophy of "any evll measure is acceotable as long as it hurts my enemies" is hypocritical, and its popularity among both left-and right-leaning partisans is ripping Washington and the nation apart just as the framers of the Constitution rightly feared it would if Party identity ever came to outweigh state identity.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Okay, you clearly only read the part you quoted. The SCOTUS nominees are etched in stone! Liberals are scared to death for Ginsburg health because her being replaced would make SCOTUS FAR Far right for decades. That has a level of influence on our nation you clearly do not appreciate.

Sure I do. That doesn't mean there is nothing good mixed in there. Doesn't mean it couldn't be worse. It most certainly could. And it will if you don't learn from this and do something about it.

There is always some good hidden in there with the bad, even when the bad is truly horrible. And it could always be worse.

There is never a "silver lining" of "it could be worse". It can always be worse. We don't get to take pleasure that we will never have UHC now, but at least Armageddon wasn't unleashed after Iran fired missiles at US troops in response to a reckless attack on Soleimani. Or, at least liberals aren't being marched to ovens yet.

Indeed. And you should see that as a good thing. You've been delivered a wake up call. Will you wake up? Many are. Hope you do too.

Pretty much just victim blaming at this point.

Yes. You are. Politesse did nothing wrong. I certainly didn't as I don't even vote in that country.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't like Trump, but I'm also not naive enough to believe that he is the only bad actor in Washington. Beating the bad guys is not enough for me, if it comes at the cost of entirely neutralizing the good guys. If the DNC can impeach a president, but can't bring themselves to field a candidate that the American people actually like and who gives a flying shit about their lives, they need to be replaced by someone who can. We would have a much better Supreme Court situation right now if the Democrats had had the balls to fight for it when they still had leverage. Trump is a brainless clown baby with powerful friends; he is not, and could not be for sheer lack of intellect, to blame for the thus-far-total failure of the Democrats to fight for democratic and constitutional rule in this country. So they're on pretty thin ice with me to begin with. Like the public defender who's friends with the county judge, they only fight battles they know they'll lose, and then only when the cameras are rolling. So who wins when they win?

If we get a genuine liberal, however pussy, okay. I'll hold my nose and vote. But if it's a bougie twat who has no interest in anything other than business as usual with a polite but meaningless patrician smile but no plans at all for change, then sorry. No. I won't vote for someone I don't support, just because I don't like their opponent.

I'm as confused as Rhea over the kind of logic that, confronted with two evils, chooses to abstain rather than vote for the lesser. It's not that I'm surprised, but I can't make sense of what the ultimate goal is--to create a better world by letting Trump have a second term to teach moderate Democrats a lesson? I would far rather have a moderate Republican as president for the next four years than Donald Trump, the absolute worst president in the history of the United States. Bloomberg? Hell, yes, rather than Trump. Yang? Hell yes, rather than Trump (although I might need to barf a few times.) Gabbard? Well, sure. Rather than Trump. Even Spirit Guru Williams, if that were my only alternative to Trump. I would even prefer (and I'm really trying to keep my dinner down now) Mike Pence over Donald Trump. Trump is an existential threat to us all.

If you vote for the lesser evil every time, the powers that be will never feel the need to do good. You know why Americans din't vote? They feel, quite correctly, that the election has little to do with them, their lives, or their needs. This forsn't have to be true, and wouldn't be true if they all voted. But these corrupt centrist types would not like how everyone would vote if they became truly politically engaged. "Business as usual" in Washington is dedigned to hurt the average American, and Trump wouldn't have a political career if people weren't sick of being told what's best for them by people who knoe nothing about their lives.

Voting Nader didn't help America get more liberal. It helped get thousands killed one day, and then a mindless expensive and costly occupation in two countries. It got Alito on the court and Roberts as well.

Voting Stein or whomever in 2016 cemented a very conservative Supreme Court.

So talk all you want about principles, but the truth is, the SCOTUS justices named by the "lesser evil" ruled to expand civil rights for many people. The SCOTUS justices voted against such things. They won't vote to approve authority for expanding health care to all people either.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you vote for the lesser evil every time, the powers that be will never feel the need to do good.

Doing good is too risky because fear the bigger bad. Slowly slide further and further towards the bad with no hope of the good. There is something fundamentally wrong with this voting system. Yet there are so few seeking to change it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sure I do. That doesn't mean there is nothing good mixed in there. Doesn't mean it couldn't be worse.

It could only be worse if Ginsburg can't survive Trump's term (and the Dems win).

There is never a "silver lining" of "it could be worse". It can always be worse. We don't get to take pleasure that we will never have UHC now, but at least Armageddon wasn't unleashed after Iran fired missiles at US troops in response to a reckless attack on Soleimani. Or, at least liberals aren't being marched to ovens yet.

Indeed. And you should see that as a good thing.

You've been delivered a wake up call. Will you wake up? Many are. Hope you do too.

Oh that's right, you think you know how to solve this problem... by having a plan... unlike Gore who said "I don't have a plan" and Hillary "I didn't adopt 2/3's of Sanders Platform into the DNC platform" Clinton.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It could only be worse if Ginsburg can't survive Trump's term (and the Dems win).

Oh it could be much worse than that.

 

[Politesse]

No. I won't vote for someone I don't support, just because I don't like their opponent.

Yes... and getting things like UHC and what not is not possible because of the shape of the Supreme Court. Thanks for participating in adult politics.

It is not my fault if the Democrats refuse to field a candidate who is popular. You can wag your finger of shame all you like, I'm not going to be embarrassed. Adults may not always have consistency or principles, but the ones I admire most do. Every one should have a line they aren't willing to cross. Frankly I'm horrified by how many people apparently think "they're in my party" is enough reason to vote for someone even if you have every reason to believe they are cheating their way in. I mean, I know this is the consensus, because Trump not only got elected once but is about to get acquitted by the Senate for trying to cheat in the next election, and the Supreme Court if challenged to will back the decision. But none of this will change if people never hold people on "their side" accountable for what they say and do.

 

[Politesse]

If you vote for the lesser evil every time, the powers that be will never feel the need to do good. You know why Americans din't vote? They feel, quite correctly, that the election has little to do with them, their lives, or their needs. This forsn't have to be true, and wouldn't be true if they all voted. But these corrupt centrist types would not like how everyone would vote if they became truly politically engaged. "Business as usual" in Washington is dedigned to hurt the average American, and Trump wouldn't have a political career if people weren't sick of being told what's best for them by people who knoe nothing about their lives.

Voting Nader didn't help America get more liberal. It helped get thousands killed one day, and then a mindless expensive and costly occupation in two countries. It got Alito on the court and Roberts as well.

Voting Stein or whomever in 2016 cemented a very conservative Supreme Court.

So talk all you want about principles, but the truth is, the SCOTUS justices named by the "lesser evil" ruled to expand civil rights for many people. The SCOTUS justices voted against such things. They won't vote to approve authority for expanding health care to all people either.

Those wars were just as bloody under Obama's watch. I am scared, terrified, of losing the court. But putting someone in who gives lip service to the left but also believes in "leading with compromise" is not making me feel that much better. Let's not forget that Merrick Garland was the Republican pick, until five seconds after he was actually announced. Moscow Mitch had asked for him by name, and Obama complied. The Left embraced Garland. But for the same reason you want me to vote for "anyone but Trump". You are endorsing a state of the nation where choices are "Republican all the way" or "Republican only sometimes" A minority of Americans are actually Republicans, yet we are becoming a single Party state. Don't you find that uncomfortable? If yhe Democrats are going to best this, they must change. If they aren't going to beat this, they need to be replaced. America is only a democracy when she is at her best. She slides into corporate oligarchy at her worst.