Democrats 2020

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here are the options:
Trump - Humanity has a quick death (years).
Centrist Democrat - Humanity has a slow death (couple of decades).
Bernie - can't win so it doesn't matter.

Why do you think a Centrist Democrat (and who is that? Do you mean corporate Democrats?) can beat Trump but Bernie can't, when you've also argued that those who will vote for the centrist democrat will turn out to vote blue no matter who? Bernie should get just as much support, and he also has cross over support and brings out independents and people who otherwise wouldn't vote. Same with Yang. Truckers for Yang is a thing. He's got a bunch of ex-Trump people. So can Bernie if he plays his cards right and speaks inclusively and doesn't make the "deplorables" trype of mistake that Hillary made. Plus you already ran a "Centrist Democrat" (Hillary) and she lost.

The Dem Party establishment is against Bernie, not just conservatives. So he won't win. My point I'd like you to focus on...was on the right hand side. All out war, economic collapse, but especially the warming of the planet...especially that one...is addressed only by the most radical change. We will end up compromising on this which is existentially tragic. But it's the reality we live in.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here are the options:
Trump - Humanity has a quick death (years).
Centrist Democrat - Humanity has a slow death (couple of decades).
Bernie - can't win so it doesn't matter.

Why do you think a Centrist Democrat (and who is that? Do you mean corporate Democrats?) can beat Trump but Bernie can't...

There are pictures and videos with Sanders and the Soviet Union. If the W Admin could flip a Vietnam Veteran into a coward, just imagine what they can do with Sanders.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There are very few people that the Dems could reasonably name as their candidate, that I wouldn't vote for.

Then why are you giving a hard time to Politesse on this? You just agreed with what Politesse wrote. You won't vote blue no matter who either. Very few people isn't zero. Its at least one or two.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here are the options:
Trump - Humanity has a quick death (years).
Centrist Democrat - Humanity has a slow death (couple of decades).
Bernie - can't win so it doesn't matter.

Why do you think a Centrist Democrat (and who is that? Do you mean corporate Democrats?) can beat Trump but Bernie can't, when you've also argued that those who will vote for the centrist democrat will turn out to vote blue no matter who? Bernie should get just as much support, and he also has cross over support and brings out independents and people who otherwise wouldn't vote. Same with Yang. Truckers for Yang is a thing. He's got a bunch of ex-Trump people. So can Bernie if he plays his cards right and speaks inclusively and doesn't make the "deplorables" trype of mistake that Hillary made. Plus you already ran a "Centrist Democrat" (Hillary) and she lost.

The Dem Party establishment is against Bernie, not just conservatives. So he won't win. My point I'd like you to focus on...was on the right hand side. All out war, economic collapse, but especially the warming of the planet...especially that one...is addressed only by the most radical change. We will end up compromising on this which is existentially tragic. But it's the reality we live in.

I thought you were saying he couldn't beat Trump in the general with their support. I read that wrong? Are you saying that the Dem Party establishment will not allow Bernie to win the nomination, or are you saying they will work against him even if he does and its him vs Trump in the general?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here are the options:
Trump - Humanity has a quick death (years).
Centrist Democrat - Humanity has a slow death (couple of decades).
Bernie - can't win so it doesn't matter.

Why do you think a Centrist Democrat (and who is that? Do you mean corporate Democrats?) can beat Trump but Bernie can't...

There are pictures and videos with Sanders and the Soviet Union. If the W Admin could flip a Vietnam Veteran into a coward, just imagine what they can do with Sanders.

You think Donald Russia Trump is going to successfully paint Sanders as an evil commie to the point that he'll win the election against him? Despite Trump having admitted Bernie is who he feared running against in 2016 and despite Bernie polling consistently as your nation's favourite politician thus far? I respectfully disagree. I think you may be surprised. Unless of course the "centrist" democrats don't turn out to vote blue no matter who as they've been preaching this whole time.

 

[Politesse]

There are very few people that the Dems could reasonably name as their candidate, that I wouldn't vote for

Likewise. It's the demonization of those who responded "depends" in the poll that I object to. If there are nominative Democrats that you, too, might not be willing to vote for, than either don't understand the word "depends", or you're one of us: the traitorous demons who won't sign a completely blank check to the DNC.

I personally think that anyone who supported Trump's impeachment, but would happily vote for someone who they know corrupted the vote just because he's in their party, is an enormous hypocrite, and very much guilty of the morally blind partisanship the GOP has been accusing their opponents of throughout the process.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Dem Party establishment is against Bernie, not just conservatives. So he won't win. My point I'd like you to focus on...was on the right hand side. All out war, economic collapse, but especially the warming of the planet...especially that one...is addressed only by the most radical change. We will end up compromising on this which is existentially tragic. But it's the reality we live in.

I thought you were saying he couldn't beat Trump in the general with their support. I read that wrong? Are you saying that the Dem Party establishment will not allow Bernie to win the nomination, or are you saying they will work against him even if he does and its him vs Trump in the general?

Both.

 

[fromderinside]

So Manchin may be on your list ....

 

[Politesse]

While, I totally disagree with what Politesse is saying, since he lives in California, it's not really going to matter who he votes for in the election. California is going to go blue, no matter who.

We need to convince those who live in the swing states to vote blue not matter who. Due to our insane system, it's only a small number of states that matter when it comes to winning the presidential election.

I think Bernie is another irrational cult leader, but Trump is far more dangerous. So, I will vote for the lesser of two evils, if Bernie is the nominee. My vote probably won't matter if Bernie Isi the nominee because I live in Georgia. But, the thing that most Bernie supporters don't seem to realize is that no matter who becomes president, if it's a Democrat, there will only be a limited number of things that will be accomplished because more than half of Democrats in Congress are moderates.

I am well aware of that. But it will also be true no matter who takes office. We will never see universal healthcare in this country. Incremental change is even less likely to achieve this goal than radical change; its opponents will always have more money, patience, and power. If you're trying on purpose to move slowly, they will happily wait you out and whittle you down every time.

But I do trust Bernie (or Warren, or Klobuchar) to veto any bill that was truly injurious to the American people in its basic intent. For Biden or Buttigieg, it would be a political decision, so I will be VERY loud about my political opinions for the length of their presidencies, if they are elected.

Either of the billionaires will sell us all out in a heartbeat if their personal financial interests are somehow threatened. You would too, if you had a nation's wealth in your investments folder. It's why the framers of thr Constitution included the oft-ignored emoluments clause, a fight we will ultimately come to deeply regret refusing to substantially fight.

 

[Rhea]

or you're one of us: the traitorous demons who won't sign a completely blank check to the DNC.
.

You misrepresent my argument, again.
Perhaps that straw is easier to be outraged against than my actual argument.
Which, that it is not loyalty to the DNC, it is a choice to do something to stop Trump, or to do nothing to stop the man and the party who are doing these bad acts.

It’s convenient to accuse me of asking for party loyalty because then you can paint me with doing something that sounds unliberal, like “demanding loyalty.”

Except i am not saying that and have explicitly said so.
I am saying that I am unable to comprehend a choice to stand by and watch Trump win when a person could do something to stop it. Bear in mind that even voting in California sends a message of a country’s absolute resolute stand against his corruption, so it is not only about being in a swing state.

You can do whatever you want, but I do not understand wanting to do nothing to stop a fascist. Wanting ti “make a statement “ whike you watch a fascist rise. I cannot be that person.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's why the framers of thr Constitution included the oft-ignored emoluments clause, a fight we will ultimately come to deeply regret refusing to substantially fight.

Excellent point. I still don't understand why the Democrats didn't nail Trump for that when trying to impeach and remove him.

 

[Politesse]

or you're one of us: the traitorous demons who won't sign a completely blank check to the DNC.
.

You misrepresent my argument, again.
Perhaps that straw is easier to be outraged against than my actual argument.
Which, that it is not loyalty to the DNC, it is a choice to do something to stop Trump, or to do nothing to stop the man and the party who are doing these bad acts.

It’s convenient to accuse me of asking for party loyalty because then you can paint me with doing something that sounds unliberal, like “demanding loyalty.”

Except i am not saying that and have explicitly said so.
I am saying that I am unable to comprehend a choice to stand by and watch Trump win when a person could do something to stop it. Bear in mind that even voting in California sends a message of a country’s absolute resolute stand against his corruption, so it is not only about being in a swing state.

You can do whatever you want, but I do not understand wanting to do nothing to stop a fascist. Wanting ti “make a statement “ whike you watch a fascist rise. I cannot be that person.

I certainly do want to stop fascism, but I do not see blind endorsement of a two-party system that currently favors a minority party in most matters as an effective means of combatting fascism. Telling the DNC "we will vote for you, no matter who" is giving them an incredibly dangerous weapon, even if your immediate motivation for doing so is fear of a certain celebrity president. It does matter who. How can it not matter who? The results of an election can be long-lasting, but so too can be the precedents they set of future elections.

 

[Politesse]

It's why the framers of thr Constitution included the oft-ignored emoluments clause, a fight we will ultimately come to deeply regret refusing to substantially fight.

Excellent point. I still don't understand why the Democrats didn't nail Trump for that when trying to impeach and remove him.

Because it would have potential implications for their own financial interests. It's not a mystery, it's just corrupt as all hell.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Yes, I've heard the theory that eating crap makes everything else taste better, but I've never felt it merited a test.

 

[lpetrich]

That's why the main election is not enough. One should also concern oneself with the primaries. One will have much more freedom there, because failure will be much less costly.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: A 'Dangerous' Mistake For Democrats Not to Embrace The Eventual Nominee | Time

While Ocasio-Cortez said she thinks Democrats’ attempts to stop Sanders are “overblown,” she suggested she could foresee a situation in which elements within the party could try to block him. “Bernie has said this, I absolutely believe this: whoever gets the nomination, we have to rally behind them, no matter who it is,” she said. “And I would hope that everybody would do so if Bernie is the nominee as well.”

Ocasio-Cortez also discouraged Democrats from using party rules or other mechanisms to block Sanders if he advances. “I don’t think it’s a good idea for people to try to use superdelegate or other kind of subversive policies to deny anybody the nomination because it’s incredibly divisive to do so, and very demoralizing, which is a direct threat in November,” she said, adding, “The moment you start playing games trying to deny whoever is the nominee, we really start to get into dangerous territory in terms of defeating Trump.”

Bernie Sanders has an impressive ground game. In a recent speech, he claimed that his canvassers knocked on over 500,000 doors. That state has a population of 3.18 million, meaning that BS's canvassers have tried to contact a large fraction of the state's residents.

I think that AOC is right about how bad it would be for the Democratic Party leadership to act, er, undemocratic.

After tonight's elections in Iowa, AOC will be checking on how many new voters were brought in to the process. She figures that that's a better approach than trying to woo Republican-leaning voters, and that is how she won against her primary opponent Joe Crowley.

She also expects BS's character to impress voters that are more conservative than him.

“The way that a lot of people feel is, I may not agree with all of the Senator’s policies, but I know that he’s not bs-ing me,” she said. “And that quality is very unique in American politics, where you will have a lot of candidates who are shifting all the time what their stances are based on what they think is popular. And Bernie does not do that.”

 

[PyramidHead]

Here are the options:
Trump - Humanity has a quick death (years).
Centrist Democrat - Humanity has a slow death (couple of decades).
Bernie - can't win so it doesn't matter.

Why do you think a Centrist Democrat (and who is that? Do you mean corporate Democrats?) can beat Trump but Bernie can't...

There are pictures and videos with Sanders and the Soviet Union. If the W Admin could flip a Vietnam Veteran into a coward, just imagine what they can do with Sanders.

If Kerry had half the integrity Sanders has, that would've bounced right off his horselike face. Tactics like that only work when the candidate in question is an empty suit.

Also, Bernie sitting shirtless at a table full of Russians drinking vodka while singing "This Land Is Your Land" is endearing and adorable

 

[Copernicus]

...
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.

Do you even remember Hillary Clinton? This is the kind of logic that gave us Donald Trump. And now you are saying that, if it didn't work then, well, you'll just try it again until people give you the result you want. It is hard to imagine a less successful strategy for enlightening the public. All you are doing is helping voters make bad choices over and over again.

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.

Picking the lesser of two evils is not equivalent to "any evil measure is acceptable as long as it hurts my enemy". I guess you had to make that equivalence in order to mount an argument against me, even though it is a total straw man. You are not going to improve the system by standing aside while Trump gets reelected because you think you have such high standards. I must say that I think you will bring about change to the system, just not the change you wanted. Trump has already done irreparable damage, and he can do a hell of a lot more over the next four years. And then what? You'll give us a lecture about not voting for the next Democratic nominee, because he or she still isn't quite up to your standards?

 

[Elixir]

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.

Do you even remember Hillary Clinton? This is the kind of logic that gave us Donald Trump. And now you are saying that, if it didn't work then, well, you'll just try it again until people give you the result you want. It is hard to imagine a less successful strategy for enlightening the public. All you are doing is helping voters make bad choices over and over again.

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.

Picking the lesser of two evils is not equivalent to "any evil measure is acceptable as long as it hurts my enemy". I guess you had to make that equivalence in order to mount an argument against me, even though it is a total straw man. You are not going to improve the system by standing aside while Trump gets reelected because you think you have such high standards. I must say that I think you will bring about change to the system, just not the change you wanted. Trump has already done irreparable damage, and he can do a hell of a lot more over the next four years. And then what? You'll give us a lecture about not voting for the next Democratic nominee, because he or she still isn't quite up to your standards?

Another four years and we will wish we had that option.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

We should pin or highlight this thread so we can all revisit it once Bernie is the clear front runner and set to clinch the nomination. I predict many of those now saying vote blue no matter who will suddenly reverse that sentiment along with the DNC and Hillary, Biden, Kerry, etc.

 

[lpetrich]

Bernie Sanders and AOC support the 'Nordic model,' which features robust health and social-welfare systems — one that Finland's leader calls 'the American Dream' | Markets Insider

• Sen. Bernie Sanders, a leading 2020 Democratic candidate, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez both support modeling the US after Nordic countries that have robust social and healthcare benefits.
• Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin also backs the idea, saying the American Dream "can be achieved best in the Nordic countries" in an interview with The Washington Post.
• Marin echoed a new, younger generation of progressive American politicians calling for steeper taxes on the very rich and corporations to make the economy fairer.
• Ocasio-Cortez explained why democratic socialism drew strong support among young adults in an interview with Business Insider last year.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explains what democratic socialism means - Business Insider - like northern-European social democracy.
She also said that when Trump was elected, the train she rode to work in was very quiet despite it being very packed. Also that some immigrants packed up their bags and left because they didn't feel welcome, something that hurt some businesses.

So there wasn't any favorite-son effect when Trump was elected.

Finland PM Marin: Nordic social model better at American dream - Business Insider

• Sanna Marin, the 34-year-old prime minister of Finland, said her country and other Nordic nations are actually the best equipped to provide citizens with a chance to achieve the American Dream.
• "I feel that the American Dream can be achieved best in the Nordic countries, where every child no matter their background or the background of their families can become anything," she told The Washington Post.
• The American Dream is, at its most basic level, the idea that everyone should be given the opportunity to reach their life's goals and ambitions.
• Marin's comments seemed to suggest a tacit endorsement for Sen. Bernie Sanders, one of the frontrunners to secure the Democratic nomination in the 2020 presidential election.
• Sanders has long advocated for Nordic-style socialism in the US, saying in 2008 that Finland has "one of the best economic and social models in the world."