2020 Democratic Party primary thread

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

How can I answer a question without knowing if millennials are what you claimed? What is your basis for calling them lazy bums? One person? Two? Three? A thousand? Furthermore, I think anticlimatic would be a better person to discuss this so-called millennial laziness with, as he has made several posts on the topic.

You're misinterpreting my post, and I think you're doing it deliberately.

I think the recession has caused many millennials to feel as though they don't have the same economic opportunities as their parents, and they are understandably upset about that. I don't think we're lazier than any other generation, we just have to deal with a neoliberal shitshow.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Let's also not forget Wilson's presidency. He is largely responsible for the rebirth of the ku klux klan, which had all but died out before he came into office. Not to mention his general overreach. One of the original imperial presidencies. Everyone cites Nixon and Dubya but really Wilson wrote the book.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Let's also not forget Wilson's presidency. He is largely responsible for the rebirth of the ku klux klan, which had all but died out before he came into office. Not to mention his general overreach. One of the original imperial presidencies. Everyone cites Nixon and Dubya but really Wilson wrote the book.

Boring. History before 2016 is not worth discussing.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It doesn't, but guess what? That's what a lot of voters think. That's what we're dealing with. Ignoring the facts on the ground because of idealistic ideas about the electorate (something I'm sure people are eager to accuse me of, but I digress) is not a winning strategy.



American voters don't care about constitutional law and procedure. It wasn't hard to predict that Trump would show no regard for such things, and again, people voted for him anyway.

American voters not caring is a poor excuse for me to not care. Half the reason we're in our current mess is the voters who didn't care when they pulled the lever for trump.

And if our eventual democratic nominee shows even half the disregard for constitutional law and procedure that Trump has shown, then I'll gladly throw my support behind a third party candidate again. I'm not going to trade one evil for a slightly lesser evil. If that makes me unrealistic or overly idealistic, so be it, although I refuse to be shamed for my choice as I have been in the past. It's pretty undemocratic in spirit and practice (not accusing you of doing this, just the people who have shamed me in the past) to belittle others for expressing their freedom to choose any candidate, even those deemed long shots.

 

[Jaguar]

You're misinterpreting my post, and I think you're doing it deliberately.

This reminds me of the time I was accused of coming on to someone for merely posting a funny Osama bin Laden pic.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Boring. History before 2016 is not worth discussing.

I know you're joking but I get frustrated when I not only hear uninformed citizens but supposed experts on TV talk about how the imprerial presidencies of the late 20th century and 21st century are "unprecedented." There's Presidential overreach going back to Adams' presidency, although it was really Jackson and Wilson who perfected the art of imperialist republicanism (lower case r republicanism). Ignoring history is one reason we keep ending up in similar messes.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

American voters not caring is a poor excuse for me to not care. Half the reason we're in our current mess is the voters who didn't care when they pulled the lever for trump.

I'm not arguing that it isn't. However, if you are looking for someone to beat Trump, and that is your sole criteria, I think considering what voters actually care about is important. It's amusing that lots of people expressing concerns about electability of certain candidates don't actually seem to have any interest in what most voters care about. I think this is how we got Trump in the first place, and thus, why I feel it is important to perhaps get people to view the electability issue differently. I don't expect to change Jaguar's mind, but perhaps I can change those of others.

It's pretty undemocratic in spirit and practice (not accusing you of doing this, just the people who have shamed me in the past) to belittle others for expressing their freedom to choose any candidate, even those deemed long shots.

I'm with you there.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I know you're joking but I get frustrated when I not only hear uninformed citizens but supposed experts on TV talk about how the imprerial presidencies of the late 20th century and 21st century are "unprecedented." There's Presidential overreach going back to Adams' presidency, although it was really Jackson and Wilson who perfected the art of imperialist republicanism (lower case r republicanism). Ignoring history is one reason we keep ending up in similar messes.

I view Trump as a modern day Andrew Jackson. Which is ironic, because there's a certain sort of Republican that likes to bring up Andrew Jackson to show why Democrats are bad.

Dubya's administration was more like a modern day James K. Polk.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I view Trump as a modern day Andrew Jackson. Which is ironic, because there's a certain sort of Republican that likes to bring up Andrew Jackson to show why Democrats are bad.

Dubya's administration was more like a modern day James K. Polk.

Republicans who bring up 19th century democrats to prove the evils of the current democratic party would be like using Leif Erikson's deeds to evaluate Christopher Columbus' voyages, or like making a judgment of Rommel's military career based on Lee's failures.

 

[Jaguar]

I think this is how we got Trump in the first place, and thus, why I feel it is important to perhaps get people to view the electability issue differently. I don't expect to change Jaguar's mind, but perhaps I can change those of others.

We got Trump because he suckered people into believing their lot in life was someone else's fault.

I didn't know you even had any argument on the table, let alone trying to change my mind about something. And speaking of trying to change people's mind, that's the problem. It's their right to make a choice, not yours to tell them which one to make. Warren can't seem to get that through her head, either.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

We got Trump because he suckered people into believing their lot in life was someone else's fault.

I didn't know you even had any argument on the table, let alone trying to change my mind about something. And speaking of trying to change people's mind, that's the problem. It's their right to make a choice, not yours to tell them which one to make. Warren can't seem to get that through her head, either.

Yes, it sounds like you have a very clear-cut strategy for defeating Trump. "Don't even try to convince voters because that's taking away their free will and choices." You got me there, buddy.

 

[Jaguar]

Yes, it sounds like you have a very clear-cut strategy for defeating Trump. "Don't even try to convince voters because that's taking away their free will and choices." You got me there, buddy.

I'm not running for president. But if I were, I certainly wouldn't be telling people what was best for them - probably because I wouldn't tolerate someone doing it to me.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

All the eventual nominee needs to do is calmly contrast their own policies and character with Trump’s and avoid referring to half of registered voters as deplorable. This really isn’t hard. I’ll laugh if they still fuck this one up

 

[Virtual ghost]

It's also reduced what respect and power we had in the world. I don't think we're going to regain that, we've lost our former place at the table. Maybe some of that is good, so we're part of the world collective rather than in charge; but at the same time, we're more like family black sheep now that the rest of the family tolerates/jokes about at holidays.

It is very bold to say something in the name of the world but I am going to do it anyway.



That mostly depends on your moves after this episode/term ends and what you will do in 2020. If America starts to make moves the world in general likes the things should quickly get where they were for the most part. We understand that you ended with crazy person that didn't even win popular vote, it happens to everyone at some point. Most of us at one or more points ended with even worse people than this. Therefore if the problematic trend that is going for 20 years at this point ends you should be generally fine reputation wise.



The thing is we are in new cold war and again "big government" on the other side doesn't smell well to most of average people. Therefore getting old USA back and have it on their side is something most probably wouldn't mind, even in good chunks of 3rd world. Especially since even with USA on our side we are all heading again into one serious and uncertain global struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Therefore if you can undo most of the last 20 years you will probably be forgiven plenty of stuff. These aren't the times for blame games since a number of big problems is knocking on the door (new cold war, climate change, global population growth, food and water quality/availability, crumbling/old infrastructure around the world etc.)

 

[Tellenbach]

Kudos to Yang for not supporting a wealth tax. He was interviewed tonight by Erin on CNN and said that the wealth tax hasn't worked in Sweden and probably won't work here for the same reasons.

Which begs the question.... why can't Poca Loca and Crazy Bernie see the problems with implementing a wealth tax in other nations? Is it too much to ask that we have politicians who look at empirical data?

 

[Lady_X]

Why on earth? He seems like an utterly random choice to me.

because i researched everyone and he seems to have his finger on the pulse of the actual issues affecting us and has actual solutions that I agree with to address them.

You should watch him on Rogan or any of his long form interviews really.

Who do you like?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The thing is we are in new cold war and again "big government" on the other side doesn't smell well to most of average people. Therefore getting old USA back and have it on their side is something most probably wouldn't mind, even in good chunks of 3rd world. Especially since even with USA on our side we are all heading again into one serious and uncertain global struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Therefore if you can undo most of the last 20 years you will probably be forgiven plenty of stuff. These aren't the times for blame games since a number of big problems is knocking on the door (new cold war, climate change, global population growth, food and water quality/availability, crumbling/old infrastructure around the world etc.)

It's interesting that you mention the past 20 years, rather then the last 3. Would you say, then, that Trump is not the only person responsible for declining American influence? What other presidential administrations would you hold responsible?

 

[Red Herring]

It's interesting that you mention the past 20 years, rather then the last 3. Would you say, then, that Trump is not the only person responsible for declining American influence? What other presidential administrations would you hold responsible?

As a fellow European I would venture to say that he was referring to the massive decline in American reputation abroad during the Bush jr. years. Not everyone loved Obama, true, but under Dubya there actually were recommendations that Americans travelling abroad should pretend to be Canadians by putting a Canadian flag on their backpack, etc.



EDIT: ....and I guess that is what you wanted to hear


EDIT: It still isn't the same. America stopped being a role model under Bush jr. and lost much of its coolness, but that is still a far cry from being a prime example of a trend that is regularly compared to the last days of the Weimar republic.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

As a fellow European I would venture to say that he was referring to the massive decline in American reputation abroad during the Bush jr. years. Not everyone loved Obama, true, but under Dubya there actually were recommendations that Americans travelling abroad should pretend to be Canadians by putting a Canadian flag on their backpack, etc.



EDIT: ....and I guess that is what you wanted to hear


EDIT: It still isn't the same. America stopped being a role model under Bush jr. and lost much of its coolness, but that is still a far cry from being a prime example of a trend that is regularly compared to the last days of the Weimar republic.

Well, I don't mean to suggest that things aren't bad or worrisome now. I'm actually engaged in activism on a state and local level, mostly around immigration policy but around other issues as well. I do feel like all the people running around in panic mode now are too late by more than 10 years (and the implication that we were "fine" before and that it's only now that they no longer recognize the country they live in), and admittedly, that makes me kind of angry.

I think Trump's high levels of unpopularity are why I feel things aren't quite as bad. If there was another 9/11 style attack to boost approval ratings so that everyone suddenly thought we should "come together as a nation", then I'd be more worried. Dubya had unusually high approval rating for his first term because of 9/11 (except for the period before 9/11).

But, go ahead [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] and accuse me of not understanding the situation just because I don't think Biden is an effective candidate (which isn't just because of his centrism). It's not like Trump's approval ratings are bad enough to guarantee he won't be re-elected (which I know people don't want to hear, but Obama's approval ratings were at the same level at this point in his presidency, and he still got reelected because the opposition chose a weak candidate).

 

[Jaguar]

But, go ahead [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] and accuse me of not understanding the situation

Oblivious.