Democrats 2020

[Derec]

Too bad she isn't in the next debate!


Williamson deletes tweet suggesting 'power of the mind' can deter Hurricane Dorian

Difference between her and a pit-bull Pat Robertson? Lipstick!

 

[Derec]

Julian Castro wants to open US to even more mass migration by classifying those migrating (ostensibly) because of climate change as "refugees".

Julian Castro’s climate change plan would recognize a new class of refugees

 

[bilby]

Telling it like it is is neither immature, nor an indication of ineptitude.

We obviously have very different opinions about the use of profanity. I think it's a sense of false bravado. Usually in trying to intimidate the other party by demonstrating one's willingness to become totally and aggressively irrational. Like a dog showing his teeth. In his case it's an indication of not just frustration, but it sounds like it's coming out of a feeling of impotence to take any effective action. A desperate act of defiance. I'd of course cast my vote for him against Trump in a general election. But it would be a vote against Trump in every sense. Realistically I can't see him as being able to organize a nation wide campaign that would beat Trump. So my vote would be purely symbolic.

What the fuck is irrational about profanity? It's a method for conveying the strongest possible emphasis without being aggressive.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-swearing-180967874/

 

[ZiprHead]

Does anybody want to talk about why most Bernie Bros are (a) female or (b) people of color

View attachment 23499

I was a Bernie supporter. I was never a Bernie Bro.

 

[Arctish]

The more things it affects, the bigger the backlash will be and less likely will it be to pass. And I was not talking about any possible future bill, but what β specifically said: he focused on "scary looking" AR-15s and AK-47s.

Did he call them "scary looking" or did you, and then quote yourself in a way that made it appear that was the term he used?

The AR-15 is one of the most popular weapons of its type in America, and is frequently used by mass murderers and domestic terrorists. The AK-47 and its variants is the most popular weapon of its type in the world, and it, too, is frequently used by the same kind of killers. If your goal is to tackle the problem of domestic terror attacks and mass murders, it makes sense to start with those models and the other weapons most frequently being used.

Note also that the previous "assault rifle" ban focused on optics, rather than functionality as well.

Which may have been a factor in why it failed.

Priorities should be about prioritizing the most serious issue, not a relatively minor one. For example, the background check loopholes should be closed. The Odessa shooter failed a background check but was able to purchase his weapon from a private party.

The type of weapons readily available to people contemplating mass murder is not a minor issue. It's a bigger factor than the holes in the background checks program.

One assault style rifle in the hands of a domestic terrorist is a greater threat to domestic tranquility that a hundred handguns sitting on bedside tables.

First of all, "assault rifle" is a misnomer. And handguns are responsible for far more deaths than the inaccurately called "assault rifles".
Remember Nidal Hasan? He murdered 13 and injured 30 with a handgun, not a rifle. Handguns are quite deadly.

Indeed they are. And I have some ideas on what to do about that, too, starting with mandatory gun safety training, proficiency standards, and requirements for gun owners to pass an exam on local and state laws regarding the use and transportation of handguns, rifles, shotguns, and similar weapons. And I think guns should be barred from public spaces, and the laws barring them strictly enforced.

People can have as many guns as the like on their own property, but public safety is more important than their desire to walk around with a handgun strapped to their hip because it makes them look badass.

So-called "assault rifles" are not nearly as big a problem as the attention they get suggests.

Ah, I think I see the problem. The white male contingent is feeling a wee bit threatened because so many of our domestic terrorists turn out to be white males.

The problem is that "white males" are singled out by politicians such as Robert "Irish I was a Mexican" O'Rourke even though they are, compared to the population size, a smaller threat than some other groups.

And because having a big gun that fires a lot of bullets is manly, and walking around town with one is a really fun way to exercise white privilege and own the libs.

I am not a gun owner myself, but gun ownership is not limited to white people, including scary looking rifles.

I am a gun owner, and I own a weapon that would probably be listed in the second or third round of government mandated buybacks if the AK-47 and AR-15 buyback program succeeds. I take my Smith&Wesson when I'm heading out into areas where I might encounter bears, and my husband takes his Glock. I've done 40 hours of handgun safety training at a private facility and would like to do it again. I've fired a few different military style weapons, too. And I live in a state where people use handguns and rifles all the time. I know what I'm talking about.

Even here in Alaska, people don't need to take a frigging handgun when they go grocery shopping. And they don't need AK-47s and AR-15s, ever.

"White privilege", as the term is commonly used by faux-liberals like you and β, is a myth.

Beto's gonna take all the fun out of it.

Luckily, he has no chance actually getting elected.

I agree his chances are slim. That doesn't mean his ideas are bad.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Telling it like it is is neither immature, nor an indication of ineptitude.

We obviously have very different opinions about the use of profanity. I think it's a sense of false bravado. Usually in trying to intimidate the other party by demonstrating one's willingness to become totally and aggressively irrational. Like a dog showing his teeth. In his case it's an indication of not just frustration, but it sounds like it's coming out of a feeling of impotence to take any effective action. A desperate act of defiance. I'd of course cast my vote for him against Trump in a general election. But it would be a vote against Trump in every sense. Realistically I can't see him as being able to organize a nation wide campaign that would beat Trump. So my vote would be purely symbolic.

What the fuck is irrational about profanity? It's a method for conveying the strongest possible emphasis without being aggressive.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-swearing-180967874/

Are we talking about the fake pic of Ocasio-Cortez taking a bath profanity or are we talking about a naughty word profanity?

 

[PyramidHead]

Does anybody want to talk about why most Bernie Bros are (a) female or (b) people of color

Maybe we can talk about how 49% white /= 51% not white. Very likely there were "not answered". Regardless, what exactly is this attempting to show? Sanders demographics don't indicate much here. It'll be the polling. It is why Harris is still hanging well back in the Varsity squad.

The interesting thing is the Urban, because it is the suburbs that matter most, that have the most votes up for grab.

Oh wow. You deserve a medal, congratulations on your win

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Does anybody want to talk about why most Bernie Bros are (a) female or (b) people of color

Maybe we can talk about how 49% white /= 51% not white. Very likely there were "not answered". Regardless, what exactly is this attempting to show? Sanders demographics don't indicate much here. It'll be the polling. It is why Harris is still hanging well back in the Varsity squad.

The interesting thing is the Urban, because it is the suburbs that matter most, that have the most votes up for grab.

Oh wow. You deserve a medal, congratulations on your win

View attachment 23520

You are posting nitpick statistics. That'd be the gymnastics. If Sanders was leading in the polls, your'd be posting that and not this.

 

[PyramidHead]

You are posting nitpick statistics. That'd be the gymnastics. If Sanders was leading in the polls, your'd be posting that and not this.

No. I'm posting a statistic that shows a wide gulf between the support people think Bernie has (white men who spend all their time online badgering other people, especially women) and the fact that his base has the least in common with that stereotype out of all the candidates in the running. Also interesting is how, despite the repeated claims of near-equivalence between Sanders and Warren's policies, Warren's demographic is totally different from his. We can have a conversation about these points and what they mean, here in this thread about the Democratic 2020 primary, or you can continue your knee-jerk mousetrap reaction of downplaying or qualifying every positive thing ever said about Bernie Sanders within minutes of my saying it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are posting nitpick statistics. That'd be the gymnastics. If Sanders was leading in the polls, your'd be posting that and not this.

No. I'm posting a statistic that shows a wide gulf between the support people think Bernie has (white men who spend all their time online badgering other people, especially women) and the fact that his base has the least in common with that stereotype out of all the candidates in the running. Also interesting is how, despite the repeated claims of near-equivalence between Sanders and Warren's policies, Warren's demographic is totally different from his. We can have a conversation about these points and what they mean, here in this thread about the Democratic 2020 primary, or you can continue your knee-jerk mousetrap reaction of downplaying or qualifying every positive thing ever said about Bernie Sanders within minutes of my saying it.

I thought the main argument against Sanders is age and ability to provide a vehicle for his platform? Sanders isn't the guy to be President, he is the guy to energize the left-wing and keep them in the conversation.

 

[PyramidHead]

You are posting nitpick statistics. That'd be the gymnastics. If Sanders was leading in the polls, your'd be posting that and not this.

No. I'm posting a statistic that shows a wide gulf between the support people think Bernie has (white men who spend all their time online badgering other people, especially women) and the fact that his base has the least in common with that stereotype out of all the candidates in the running. Also interesting is how, despite the repeated claims of near-equivalence between Sanders and Warren's policies, Warren's demographic is totally different from his. We can have a conversation about these points and what they mean, here in this thread about the Democratic 2020 primary, or you can continue your knee-jerk mousetrap reaction of downplaying or qualifying every positive thing ever said about Bernie Sanders within minutes of my saying it.

I thought the main argument against Sanders is age and ability to provide a vehicle for his platform? Sanders isn't the guy to be President, he is the guy to energize the left-wing and keep them in the conversation.

Ironically, Sanders' ability to energize the left-wing IS his ability to provide a vehicle for his platform. Nothing gets done in the next Presidential term--nothing--no matter who is elected, if the populace does not apply pressure on its representatives in Congress. The only candidate with a realistic theory of change and is represented by a broad grassroots movement to back it up is Bernie Sanders. All the others seem to be doing just the thing you criticize him for: simply describing their plans and expecting everyone to believe that Congress will hear how great they sound and spontaneously vote for them. That's never going to happen. Without strikes, protests, boycotts, and a unified popular resistance to the bad actors in society, which nobody but Bernie and sometimes Warren even correctly identify, there is no systemic change on the horizon and in a very real sense no hope for our species.

Show me one other candidate that is as effective at organizing masses of people, many or most of whom have been too disaffected (or too young!) to vote in prior elections. The suburban wine moms will vote for whatever Democrat is nominated. The never-Trump Republicans are a tiny slice of the electorate... and the dirty secret is they all voted for Trump and will do so again. We don't need those votes, we need the working poor, minorities, women, and the younger generation, all of whom support Sanders more than they do anybody else, some of whom are unwilling to vote at all if he doesn't get the nomination. The only rational conclusion to be drawn from the claim that "Bernie's base not voting for Hillary gave Trump the election" is that Bernie's base is needed to beat Trump.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought the main argument against Sanders is age and ability to provide a vehicle for his platform? Sanders isn't the guy to be President, he is the guy to energize the left-wing and keep them in the conversation.

Ironically, Sanders' ability to energize the left-wing IS his ability to provide a vehicle for his platform.

Which is why he has penned so much legislation?

Nothing gets done in the next Presidential term--nothing--no matter who is elected, if the populace does not apply pressure on its representatives in Congress.

Spoiler alert, they really aren't. Best case scenario is a filibuster driven Senate.

The only candidate with a realistic theory of change and is represented by a broad grassroots movement to back it up is Bernie Sanders.

The cult of personality stuff needs to end. How many Sanders backed candidates won either their primary or the general election in '18? The number is very small. People like yourself need to appreciate that America, while supporting a good deal of Sanders' positions, seem completely incapable of backing that up with a vote for Sanders. People look to Ocasio-Cortez and are reading WAY too deeply into the repercussions of her election... in a largely Latino and liberal district. People see Ocasio-Cortez and think "that can be America". It isn't. It is a sheltered district which outgrew its powerful incumbent. Heck, look at the Tea Party, which had substantial success winning dozens of seats in the House, yet, only was capable of winning in strongly red districts.

All the others seem to be doing just the thing you criticize him for: simply describing their plans and expecting everyone to believe that Congress will hear how great they sound and spontaneously vote for them. That's never going to happen. Without strikes, protests, boycotts, and a unified popular resistance to the bad actors in society, which nobody but Bernie and sometimes Warren even correctly identify, there is no systemic change on the horizon and in a very real sense no hope for our species.

I don't think Sanders can win a general election after the right-wing media is done with him. His trip to the Soviet Union? Seriously, you think that is going to sell with the elderly and moderates?

Show me one other candidate that is as effective at organizing masses of people, many or most of whom have been too disaffected (or too young!) to vote in prior elections.

Trump.

Oh wait, you meant Democrat. You do get my point, right? That amassing large crowds isn't the bell weather for effective leadership. Obama did it, and was pretty successful in the White House. Trump did, and well...

And I suppose this would be the kicker here. You know who'd be doing well in the White House now? A level-minded Trump. The trouble Trump had was that he is for things that only a minority of Americans support, like axing ACA, building the wall, etc... And that couldn't fit through the hopper at Congress. It came close, but ultimately it failed because there wasn't large enough support. The Dems needed a super-majority in the Senate and a large majority in the House to pass ACA. And passing ACA killed the Dems in 2010... which oddly enough is popular enough in the US that ACA can no longer be ax'd. Stupid Americans!

The suburban wine moms will vote for whatever Democrat is nominated.

And what about the Obama - Trump voters? The blue collar voters in Trumbull County, Ohio, the farmers who despite losing money, still support this douchebag? They are going to flip for a "communist"?

The never-Trump Republicans are a tiny slice of the electorate... and the dirty secret is they all voted for Trump and will do so again. We don't need those votes, we need the working poor, minorities, women, and the younger generation, all of whom support Sanders more than they do anybody else, some of whom are unwilling to vote at all if he doesn't get the nomination. The only rational conclusion to be drawn from the claim that "Bernie's base not voting for Hillary gave Trump the election" is that Bernie's base is needed to beat Trump.

Indeed, it could be as simple as full blown turnout to win... at least, that would have worked in 2016.

But Sanders has baggage, and really nothing to back him. He is a left-wing version of a Libertarian. Full of ideas, but no execution of them.

 

[PyramidHead]

Which is why he has penned so much legislation?

Do you realize how many bills he has sponsored or co-sponsored, how many amendments he has gotten into existing bills, and how much his entire platform is driving the whole of the Democratic primary debates?

I don't think Sanders can win a general election after the right-wing media is done with him. His trip to the Soviet Union? Seriously, you think that is going to sell with the elderly and moderates?

Appealing to the elderly and moderates did not win the 2016 election when the less moderate candidate won, the 2012 election when the less moderate candidate won, the 2008 election when the less moderate candidate won, the 2004 election when the less moderate candidate won... we all need to stop caring about this demographic.

Show me one other candidate that is as effective at organizing masses of people, many or most of whom have been too disaffected (or too young!) to vote in prior elections.

Trump.

Oh wait, you meant Democrat. You do get my point, right? That amassing large crowds isn't the bell weather for effective leadership.

Holy fuck. Did Trump win or lose? Which strategy won in 2016, reaching out to centrists and geriatrics or mass populist support? It's like a shell game with you sometimes, Jimmy. When we're talking about policies, you switch to saying electability is the thing we need to focus on and beat Trump at all costs. When we're talking about how to win elections, now it's suddenly "not a bellwether for effective leadership". Do you want to beat Donald Trump? Do you think popular involvement in politics on a massive scale is bad because Trump was bad? You say:

Obama did it, and was pretty successful in the White House. Trump did, and well...

...and well what? HE WON! Aren't we supposed to be supporting the candidate that can win?

And I suppose this would be the kicker here. You know who'd be doing well in the White House now? A level-minded Trump. The trouble Trump had was that he is for things that only a minority of Americans support, like axing ACA, building the wall, etc... And that couldn't fit through the hopper at Congress. It came close, but ultimately it failed because there wasn't large enough support. The Dems needed a super-majority in the Senate and a large majority in the House to pass ACA. And passing ACA killed the Dems in 2010... which oddly enough is popular enough in the US that ACA can no longer be ax'd. Stupid Americans!

Quite right; let's all rally behind the candidate whose policies enjoy widespread support, not just among Democrats but voters in general, including a good chunk of Fox News viewers who are pissed off at being bamboozled by Trump's promises but are still wary of Washington elite liberals. Let's choose the candidate with the highest approval rating overall. Let's choose the only candidate who voted against the fucking war in Iraq. Let's choose the one with more individual donors than the next few combined and no corporate PAC money. Why is this so hard?

And what about the Obama - Trump voters? The blue collar voters in Trumbull County, Ohio, the farmers who despite losing money, still support this douchebag? They are going to flip for a "communist"?

Moreso than any other candidate in the running, Sanders appeals to that bloc because he unequivocally denounces the disastrous trade deals that Trump said he was going to reverse and never did. In many rural states that went to Trump in 2016, Sanders beats him in the polls. Every Democratic politician has been or will be called a communist, and the type of people who will be scared by that will be scared by it no matter who is nominated, end of story.

But that's a moot point: Bernie doesn't need one of their votes to win. Not one. If every Democrat who voted for Clinton votes for him in the general, plus all the support he has gained from the low-income, immigrant, and left-wing base that doesn't come out to vote for centrists, Trump loses.

Indeed, it could be as simple as full blown turnout to win... at least, that would have worked in 2016.

But Sanders has baggage, and really nothing to back him. He is a left-wing version of a Libertarian. Full of ideas, but no execution of them.

That's a pretty vague and disingenuous criticism. He has detailed execution outlines on his website for everything he has proposed. This is you fabricating, or being cluelessly duped by those who do.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It won't be Bernie. The Democratic Party masters have demonstrated several times over that they allow their membership only a limited role in choosing their candidates. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. What they want to do this time is to give Bernie a good enough showing that they can woo his supporters over to the "real" candidate. They want him to be a boneless chicken for mass consumption, and he looks like he is more than ready to comply.

 

[PyramidHead]

It won't be Bernie. The Democratic Party masters have demonstrated several times over that they allow their membership only a limited role in choosing their candidates. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. What they want to do this time is to give Bernie a good enough showing that they can woo his supporters over to the "real" candidate. They want him to be a boneless chicken for mass consumption, and he looks like he is more than ready to comply.

What does this even mean? What should he be doing, other than pushing his policies and galvanizing support for them among the constituents of the only major political party with a chance of enacting them?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It won't be Bernie. The Democratic Party masters have demonstrated several times over that they allow their membership only a limited role in choosing their candidates. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. What they want to do this time is to give Bernie a good enough showing that they can woo his supporters over to the "real" candidate. They want him to be a boneless chicken for mass consumption, and he looks like he is more than ready to comply.

What does this even mean? What should he be doing, other than pushing his policies and galvanizing support for them among the constituents of the only major political party with a chance of enacting them?

In 2016 Bernie promised his supporters a free education. In July of 2016 boy did he deliver. It seems you've forgotten the lesson.

 

[PyramidHead]

It won't be Bernie. The Democratic Party masters have demonstrated several times over that they allow their membership only a limited role in choosing their candidates. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. What they want to do this time is to give Bernie a good enough showing that they can woo his supporters over to the "real" candidate. They want him to be a boneless chicken for mass consumption, and he looks like he is more than ready to comply.

What does this even mean? What should he be doing, other than pushing his policies and galvanizing support for them among the constituents of the only major political party with a chance of enacting them?

In 2016 Bernie promised his supporters a free education. In July of 2016 boy did he deliver. It seems you've forgotten the lesson.

Wait... are you one of the people who thinks that Bernie is the reason Trump won in 2016? I should have known, liberal ideas always travel in packs

EDIT: And anyway, wouldn't that mean that he's NOT ready to comply, since in 2016 he apparently cost the Dems the pres--oh I give up, what's the point anymore

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do you realize how many bills he has sponsored or co-sponsored, how many amendments he has gotten into existing bills, and how much his entire platform is driving the whole of the Democratic primary debates?

Seven primary sponsored bills became law of he sponsored 414 bills. This is less than half the average for proposed bills that become law.

By comparison, Dianne Feinstein is 50% higher than the average.

 

[PyramidHead]

Do you realize how many bills he has sponsored or co-sponsored, how many amendments he has gotten into existing bills, and how much his entire platform is driving the whole of the Democratic primary debates?

Seven primary sponsored bills became law of he sponsored 414 bills. This is less than half the average for proposed bills that become law.

By comparison, Dianne Feinstein is 50% higher than the average.

He has co-sponsored hundreds that have passed, and your stopping at that part of the post while snipping the rest is duly noted. When a candidate supports policy ideas that you agree with, and a large and growing segment of the population agrees with them too, you look at the lack of success in getting all those bills passed as a problem that needs to be remedied, and you do it by rallying support for the candidate and his ideas. Then you do the same for all the districts where candidates sympathetic to those ideas are running for election, like Shaun King is doing with his Flip the Senate initiative (King is a Bernie supporter by the way) It's called organizing. It wins elections.

What you don't do is fall into the self-fulfilling prophecy trap of assuming everything about the political landscape is fixed and immutable, and is the same as it was when Reagan was in charge. That's what you do when you don't actually want to win an election, you just want to keep your cushy government job and not be required to actually govern or challenge the status quo.

By the way, democratic socialist and leftist candidates have been winning state and local elections all year, despite the best efforts of the DNC to stop them from doing so and keep the centrists in charge. If you're not seeing as much of a progressive influx of legislators as you'd like, do something about it or admit that you don't actually care about progressive politics. Sitting on the sidelines and scoping out the most unobjectionable, safest pile of warm oatmeal in the hopes of inching things forward another notch (while the militant, energized right wing drags everyone back ten notches) is helping nobody.

 

[ZiprHead]

It won't be Bernie. The Democratic Party masters have demonstrated several times over that they allow their membership only a limited role in choosing their candidates. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. What they want to do this time is to give Bernie a good enough showing that they can woo his supporters over to the "real" candidate. They want him to be a boneless chicken for mass consumption, and he looks like he is more than ready to comply.

Bernie isn't a Democrat.