Democrats 2020

[blastula]

Something being an active battlefield for American interests does not make a killing justified. All American military acts after WWII have been premeditated murder.

But violence by Antifa is okay if they only declare someone a Nazi.

 

[Derec]

 Anwar al-Awlaki

That piece of shit joined a terrorist organization waging jihad against the United States. Being de jure a citizen makes him a traitor.
It was not possible to just arrest him and put him on trial, so he was droned. Justified use of deadly force.

 

[Derec]

It is up to those countries. Obviously Yeman

Where is that? Close to Speedersfundus, OR?

Yet there are many here who jump to protect a racist Israel against ousted muslims there.

Israel is not racist. First of all, Muslim is not a race. Second, there are a million Arabs living as citizens in Israel. There are zero Jews living in Gaza, and Abbas has vowed that zero Jews will live in any future Arab Palestinian state.

 

[Derec]

That is not a court transcript demonstrating all the claims about Anwar al-Awlaki, that is a Wikipedia article stating what the claims are about Anwar al-Awlaki. You can think he is a horrible guy, you can think he is a great guy, but that doesn't mean that a court has determined anything.

If a German American went and joined Waffen-SS during WWII, there would be no court conviction necessary for US military to kill him.

He was not on an active battlefield at the time of his death. That is the apt analogy to killing a mugger in the act.

It was not possible to go in and arrest him and bring him to justice.

However, if the cop has a non-resisting suspect in handcuffs for a crime the cop did not see but does suspect, he cannot and should not kill the suspect. Anwar al-Awlaki was

... definitely not in handcuffs, about to be booked and jailed, so your analogy falls flat.

This is not a judicious killing, no matter how horrible the person killed. This was premeditated murder.

Premeditated yes, murder no.

 

[Derec]

Speaking at a rally in Las Vegas, Donald Trump has claimed that Elizabeth Warren believed she was an “Indian” because she had “high cheekbones”, again dubbing her “Pocahontas“ in a mocking reference to her previous claims that she was of Native American heritage.

The "high cheekbones" claim is not by Trump, but by Princess Lieawatha herself.
Warren explains minority listing, talks of grandfather's "high cheekbones"

Later, again referring to her as Pocahontas,

He keeps getting that part wrong. It's Fauxcahontas. Of the Wannabe Nation.

he called Ms Warren “mean” after her performance in Wednesday’s Democratic primary debate in which she energetically confronted several of her rival presidential candidates.

Well she definitely was. Instead of talking about why she would be the best for the job, she went all negative.

referring to native Americans as “Indians”,

Rejecting the politically correct and tendentious moniker "Native American" is not "racist". "Indian" is not racist - it's merely a historical name.

He has also been called out for twice making jokes on Twitter involving historical incidents of genocide against Native American people.

Example?

 

[lpetrich]

Klobuchar wins over New Hampshire voters who attend religious services - Religion News Service - noting New Hampshire primary 2020: Polls, news, maps and results

Once a week or more, Occasionally, Never

• (All) 13% 37% 51%
• Sanders 15% 23% 31%
• Buttigieg 20% 24% 23%
• Klobuchar 30% 22% 18%
• Warren 6% 9% 10%
• Biden 13% 12% 5%
• Steyer 4% 5% 5%
• Gabbard 4% 2% 4%
• Yang 1% 2% 2%

Bernie Sanders gets the most support from those not involved in organized religion, and Elizabeth Warren's support has a similar profile.

Meanwhile, the source of the surge in religious support for Klobuchar is unclear, although it follows a successful debate performance and a rash of news coverage regarding Democratic candidates who were asked whether there was room in the party for voters who oppose abortion. Sanders and Buttigieg both suggested that fervent support for abortion rights was a key value among Democrats, but Klobuchar argued differently.

“There are pro-life Democrats, and they are part of our party, and I think we need to build a big tent,” she said during an appearance on the television show “The View” on Monday morning. “I think we need to bring people in instead of shutting them out.”

In absolute numbers, yes, but in relative numbers, Joe Biden gets even more support.

Relative to the population, churchgoers tended to vote more than non-churchgoers, even for Bernie Sanders.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If a German American went and joined Waffen-SS during WWII, there would be no court conviction necessary for US military to kill him.

That German American would be meeting Allied forces on the field of battle. That's the difference.

It was not possible to go in and arrest him and bring him to justice.

It is still possible for the executive to present the evidence to the judicial.

This was an extra-judicial killing, a assassination and not an execution.

 

[lpetrich]

Gospel of Matthew's Message Rings Loudly for Some 2020 Dems - The New York Times - Matthew 25 seems to be the favorite bit of the Bible among Democratic candidates.

Here's the important part:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Matthew 25:31-45, NRSV

Back to the NYT article.

The ad opens with footage from a speech by the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor in which Buttigieg says that if he’s elected president, Americans wouldn’t have to ask themselves, “Whatever happened to, ‘I was hungry and you fed me? I was a stranger and you welcomed me?’”

Barack Obama also invoked that part of the Bible, and Elizabeth Warren has done that several times. I remember some video of her doing that and her sort of skipping over the eternal-damnation parts. She also says that part of its message is that there is God in each and every one of us. Elizabeth Warren speaks at 2019 Rainbow Push Coalition Convention - YouTube

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, who has described himself as “a Matthew 25 Catholic,” used that moniker in 2018 to respond to a report of migrant children dying in U.S. custody.

Cory Booker has also invoked Matthew 25.

That seems to reduce Xianity to a system of ethics, and a rather selective one at that.

I don't think that Pete Buttigieg likes the homophobe parts of the Bible, though he might say that he has a David-Jonathan relationship with his husband.

I don't think that Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar or Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand would like 1 Corinthians 11 or 14, or Ephesians 3, or 1 Timothy 2. Though they might like Deborah in Judges 4.

 

[Politesse]

Since you bring it up, I note that Matthew 25 belongs to the middle section of Jesus' most well-known sermon, the element of his teaching that comes closest to a systematic moral or philosophical system, whereas proscriptions against female authority and homosexuality are almost exclusively personal commentary included in the apostolic letters of Paul and other early preachers.

In terms of ranking significance, between "major theme of the founder's best known lecture" and "side note in other people's letters", which would you consider to be the most important message to consider, all things being equal?

I'm with Buttigieg and Warren on what should be considered the priority here.

 

[Toni]

Gospel of Matthew's Message Rings Loudly for Some 2020 Dems - The New York Times - Matthew 25 seems to be the favorite bit of the Bible among Democratic candidates.

Here's the important part:

Back to the NYT article.

Barack Obama also invoked that part of the Bible, and Elizabeth Warren has done that several times. I remember some video of her doing that and her sort of skipping over the eternal-damnation parts. She also says that part of its message is that there is God in each and every one of us. Elizabeth Warren speaks at 2019 Rainbow Push Coalition Convention - YouTube

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, who has described himself as “a Matthew 25 Catholic,” used that moniker in 2018 to respond to a report of migrant children dying in U.S. custody.

Cory Booker has also invoked Matthew 25.

That seems to reduce Xianity to a system of ethics, and a rather selective one at that.

I don't think that Pete Buttigieg likes the homophobe parts of the Bible, though he might say that he has a David-Jonathan relationship with his husband.

I don't think that Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar or Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand would like 1 Corinthians 11 or 14, or Ephesians 3, or 1 Timothy 2. Though they might like Deborah in Judges 4.

I can't help but remember a conversation I had a number of years ago with a father of one of the kids' on my kids' soccer team. He was a very good person, a very good man, well liked and respected. He was also a minister and a liberal. He and I were having a conversation about some issues that were seriously dividing our town at the time and I expressed that I didn't really think that we'd ever be able to overcome our (our town's) differences because people had such different expectations, points of view, religious traditions, etc. He was very thoughtful and he said that he thought that of course it was possible and that what was important was our (as in the community's) shared values rather than minor differences in religious philosophy (including no religion). And I think he's right. I think that the values quoted above are among the highest values that our society or any society should embrace. I used to think that at its best, that was what America was about. I hope we get back there again someday soon, or rather to a deeper, better understanding of what it means to care for all of our people, not just the lucky few with enough resources.

 

[ZiprHead]

Bernie's proposed income tax rates.



Bernie's Medicare For All premium rates.

 

[southernhybrid]

I completely expect Bernie to become the nominee at this point, but do you actually believe that he will ever get anything resembling his dreamy plans passed? Seriously, even the most progressive economists are saying don't worry about what Bernie says because even if you aren't a fan of M4A, it's not going to be passed by Congress. I guess that's the thing that worries me, not M4A, but how many gullible people seem to think that Bernie will achieve anything near M4A.

So, I'm asking honestly. Do those of you who consider yourself strong supporters of Bernie, really believe he will be able to accomplish any more than any other president who has made big promises, but had to settle for much less? Or do you understand that he won't get what he wants, but you like him because he says what you want to hear, or you like that he seems to have a good heart, or you think he can beat Trump or for some other reason?

I never understood how people could fall in line for Trump, and I don't understand those who are all in for Bernie. Give me your reasons.

As I've already stated, I will vote blue, no matter who, and hope that that person wins, regardless of my concerns about that outcome.

Anyway, it sure would help if Bernie would stop shouting and raising his arms like a madman.

 

[southernhybrid]

Bernie's proposed income tax rates.

View attachment 26255

Bernie's Medicare For All premium rates.

View attachment 26256

If Bernie is including retired people in that tax bracket, our taxes might be much higher than what we are currently paying for our Medicare premiums and copays. Currently, a couple who make less than about 32K, not including their SS, pays no taxes on any of their SS, plus with the current standard deduction, a retired person who makes about 45-50K in total, pays no federal income taxes. My husband and I currently pay less than 1800 per year for our Medicare Advantage Plan. Our copay is only 5 dollars for primary care and 35 for specialists. Drug copays are small other than for one drug which Medicare doesn't cover. Are Bernie's proposed tax rates gross or net income? Would he change the standard deduction and do away with the SS tax rate? If his plan is based on gross tax without any standard deduction, I'm in much better shape with what we pay now, than what we would pay under Bernie's plan.

I don't expect that his plan would ever be passed, but if it were, older adults on a fixed income would be in worst shape than they are now. Plus, I think 10 percent for the lowest tax bracket is way too high. That chart leaves out a lot of very important information. That concerns me. Not that I expect it to ever become law, but I'd like to see a very detailed, realistic plan, not one that leaves many unanswered questions.

Plus the highest rate is what is was before the Trump tax break. BFD! I think Bloomberg wants to raises taxes on the highest percentile to 44 percent. That sounds like a much better plan to me. I know it looks as if Bernie may very well be the nominee, since the more moderate faction has fucked itself by having so many candidates, but it's pretty bad when the billionaires tax plan looks a lot more reasonable than the Democratic Socialist's plan.

 

[J842P]

I completely expect Bernie to become the nominee at this point, but do you actually believe that he will ever get anything resembling his dreamy plans passed? Seriously, even the most progressive economists are saying don't worry about what Bernie says because even if you aren't a fan of M4A, it's not going to be passed by Congress. I guess that's the thing that worries me, not M4A, but how many gullible people seem to think that Bernie will achieve anything near M4A.

So, I'm asking honestly. Do those of you who consider yourself strong supporters of Bernie, really believe he will be able to accomplish any more than any other president who has made big promises, but had to settle for much less? Or do you understand that he won't get what he wants, but you like him because he says what you want to hear, or you like that he seems to have a good heart, or you think he can beat Trump or for some other reason?

I never understood how people could fall in line for Trump, and I don't understand those who are all in for Bernie. Give me your reasons.

As I've already stated, I will vote blue, no matter who, and hope that that person wins, regardless of my concerns about that outcome.

Anyway, it sure would help if Bernie would stop shouting and raising his arms like a madman.

What's so hard to understand supporting the politician who's policies most closely resemble the ones you support? Why is this difficult for you?

 

[Politesse]

I completely expect Bernie to become the nominee at this point, but do you actually believe that he will ever get anything resembling his dreamy plans passed? Seriously, even the most progressive economists are saying don't worry about what Bernie says because even if you aren't a fan of M4A, it's not going to be passed by Congress. I guess that's the thing that worries me, not M4A, but how many gullible people seem to think that Bernie will achieve anything near M4A.

So, I'm asking honestly. Do those of you who consider yourself strong supporters of Bernie, really believe he will be able to accomplish any more than any other president who has made big promises, but had to settle for much less? Or do you understand that he won't get what he wants, but you like him because he says what you want to hear, or you like that he seems to have a good heart, or you think he can beat Trump or for some other reason?

I never understood how people could fall in line for Trump, and I don't understand those who are all in for Bernie. Give me your reasons.

As I've already stated, I will vote blue, no matter who, and hope that that person wins, regardless of my concerns about that outcome.

Anyway, it sure would help if Bernie would stop shouting and raising his arms like a madman.

More like the second reason. Personally, I don't like presidents who meddle around in the Legislative anyway (yes, I know I'm in the minority and everyone else thinks they're some sort of super-Senator who gives their party every marching order) but if they're going to, then they should at least be advocating for good and worthwhile things, not aiding and abetting in the continued Rightward drift of the past four decades.

We've had a fascist racist in office for four years, utterly dismantling the ability of the Executive Branch to do any of its very important jobs. The branch that the president is actually supposed to lead. Taking control of the White House again, let alone the houses of Congress, is going to take someone with metaphorical balls, who we at least know hasn't been bought by any of the same swamp critters as his predecessor. If some heads need to roll across the White House lawn before our government is functional again, and they do, you need an arm waver in the Oval Office, not someone who first learns about their policy positions by reading them off a teleprompter. Some degree of personal drive and charisma will be utterly necessary for the difficult job ahead. For God's sake there are children in cages. There is no time to pussyfoot around wondering what tiny symbolic moves will be most popular with what constituencies based on what news agency's convenience-sampled polls.

 

[Elixir]

I completely expect Bernie to become the nominee at this point, but do you actually believe that he will ever get anything resembling his dreamy plans passed? Seriously, even the most progressive economists are saying don't worry about what Bernie says because even if you aren't a fan of M4A, it's not going to be passed by Congress. I guess that's the thing that worries me, not M4A, but how many gullible people seem to think that Bernie will achieve anything near M4A.

So, I'm asking honestly. Do those of you who consider yourself strong supporters of Bernie, really believe he will be able to accomplish any more than any other president who has made big promises, but had to settle for much less? Or do you understand that he won't get what he wants, but you like him because he says what you want to hear, or you like that he seems to have a good heart, or you think he can beat Trump or for some other reason?

I never understood how people could fall in line for Trump, and I don't understand those who are all in for Bernie. Give me your reasons.

As I've already stated, I will vote blue, no matter who, and hope that that person wins, regardless of my concerns about that outcome.

I'd be all in for Bernie if I thought he'd carry the Senate and keep the House. He might even get stuff done if that was the case.
I'm with you though - Even if I doubt he can do either, if he's the nominee I'll vote for him and a straight Dem ticket in November.

Anyway, it sure would help if Bernie would stop shouting and raising his arms like a madman.

And for the love of God, stop poking that crooked finger like you're chasing some kid off your lawn!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't think there are many, even hard core Bernie supporters, who think Bernie can get M4A done all by himself. That's why he refers to him in the presidency as the "organizer in chief". It takes more than a president. You do have a (quasi) democracy. You CAN make the change happen, but it means you'll have to join in and act together.

 

[lpetrich]

Since you bring it up, I note that Matthew 25 belongs to the middle section of Jesus' most well-known sermon, the element of his teaching that comes closest to a systematic moral or philosophical system, whereas proscriptions against female authority and homosexuality are almost exclusively personal commentary included in the apostolic letters of Paul and other early preachers.

However one determines that. Seems to me like making the Bible in one's moral likeness.

I don't want to go the other way, either. In another forum, I pointed out a contradiction about preparing for future events.

• Yes: In Genesis 41, Joseph interprets the Pharaoh's dreams as what will come in future years, and he advises saving up a lot of grain during good times so one will have a lot to eat during bad times. The Pharaoh orders that, and the plan succeeds.
• No: In Matthew 6, Jesus Christ says that one should not prepare for one's future, because God will deliver food and clothing for you.

Some people in that forum argued that the first one was the unusual one in the Bible, and I consider that dumb, like saying that the Bible is a very villainous book.

 

[lpetrich]

Bernie Sanders has learned a lot from his star pupil, it seems. Seek out new voters and don't worry that much about fence-sitters.

Adrian Carrasquillo on Twitter: "At Cashman Middle School off the strip, Spanish-speaking Latino voters were asked why they supported Bernie and they said “Honestly, he’s the only one we see on TV and in Spanish ads.”
I’m a broken record on Latino investment, but it’s important. Speak to voters where they are." / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Over & over again, I hear insider consultants say that investing in Latinx outreach is a “waste of time.”
When I ran, people TOLD me “not to bother” with my own community.
Bernie takes Latinx outreach seriously. He was often the only 1 showing up to Iowa satellite caucuses,too. https://t.co/BkpnR8evbS" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Mind you this is also important because immigration and progressive ag issues are where many Dems get scared.
Bernie doesn’t. His immigration plan is next level - read it. And next time, ask yourself why Latinx communities are so often treated as disposable in Washington." / Twitter

 

[Politesse]

Since you bring it up, I note that Matthew 25 belongs to the middle section of Jesus' most well-known sermon, the element of his teaching that comes closest to a systematic moral or philosophical system, whereas proscriptions against female authority and homosexuality are almost exclusively personal commentary included in the apostolic letters of Paul and other early preachers.

However one determines that. Seems to me like making the Bible in one's moral likeness.

I don't want to go the other way, either. In another forum, I pointed out a contradiction about preparing for future events.

• Yes: In Genesis 41, Joseph interprets the Pharaoh's dreams as what will come in future years, and he advises saving up a lot of grain during good times so one will have a lot to eat during bad times. The Pharaoh orders that, and the plan succeeds.
• No: In Matthew 6, Jesus Christ says that one should not prepare for one's future, because God will deliver food and clothing for you.

Some people in that forum argued that the first one was the unusual one in the Bible, and I consider that dumb, like saying that the Bible is a very villainous book.

I note that Jesus' advice was to be unworried, not to be unprepared per se. Comparing the Gospel of Matthew to Exodus seems like a comparison of apples to oranges in any case, but I would be a bit worried if a politician interpreted Matthew 6 in your fashion!