2020 Democratic Party primary thread

[Virtual ghost]

I don't really see why bring Warren's team into this. All her mistakes seem to be hers.
She just doesn't really know how to make a decent presentation when not everything is going her way.

 

[Jaguar]

You seem to be socially liberal but not really keen on the whole democratic tax and spend agenda either. Too bad there’s absolutely no party or candidates in this country running on a fiscally conservative, socially liberal platform. Yep, none to be found.

That is true. But not being able to fully identify with a party in no way bothers me. Were it not for parties, this country wouldn't be as fucked up as it is.

 

[Jaguar]

I really wish Warren had a better campaign manager. She could handily run over Sanders, but her own messaging instincts are bad, and her team appears unable to understand mass psychology beyond the scope of debates.

Warren and Buttigieg would be the best team to win the presidency. But by now I fear that Warren will fall to Sanders, Sanders will fall to Biden, and Buttigieg will not get a chance to wrest Biden voters away from the warm familiarity of the Obama years.

Obama passed her over as director of The Consumer Financial Protection Agency because he didn't think she could fight off Republicans. And he was probably right. Are you suggesting Pete play second fiddle to that whiny-assed creature who can't even control her emotions after a national debate? Come on, now.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

I don't really see why bring Warren's team into this. All her mistakes seem to be hers.
She just doesn't really know how to make a decent presentation when not everything is going her way.

Her mishaps distract from her ideas, and she can't see herself and her campaign in a 360 degrees type of way. She needs someone to train her to stay on message and clean up her campaign. Her "gonna go crab me a beer" thing was so awkward and it makes it difficult for people to take her seriously. Someone should have gone over this with her and told her not to do it.

 

[Nicodemus]

Obama passed her over as director of The Consumer Financial Protection Agency because he didn't think she could fight off Republicans. And he was probably right. Are you suggesting Pete play second fiddle to that whiny-assed creature who can't even control her emotions after a national debate? Come on, now.

Careful, Jaguar, your sexism is showing.

 

[Tellenbach]

CNN is likely colluding with Warren's campaign to sabotage Bernie's chances just like in 2016. One of the moderators pretty much called Bernie a liar.

"Senator Warren, how did you feel when Senator Sanders called you a loser with no chance in hell of winning any election?" what the CNN host was really thinking

 

[Jaguar]

Careful, Jaguar, your sexism is showing.

So by using the word "her" in a sentence, it's sexist? I expect more from you, Nico. I call Trump a whiny-assed bitch nearly every day. He can't control his emotions either - can you not read his tweets? Talk about emotional meltdowns. . .

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

CNN is likely colluding with Warren's campaign to sabotage Bernie's chances just like in 2016. One of the moderators pretty much called Bernie a liar.

CNN is shit.

 

[Jaguar]

CNN is shit. I disagree. Were it not for Ted Turner leading the way out of the past and into the future, we wouldn't have a 24-hr news cycle. Everyone thought he was insane, telling him it would never work.

It worked.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

CNN is shit. I disagree. Were it not for Ted Turner leading the way out of the past and into the future, we wouldn't have a 24-hr news cycle. Everyone thought he was insane, telling him it would never work.

It worked.

24 hour news cycles gave us OJ, which give us Fox News. There would be no Fox News without CNN.

Nor do I feel like the quality of the reporting on cable news makes it worth the 24 hours. Most of the time, they just repeat the same few stories, and these tend to consist of only the most trivial and superficial aspects of American politics along with some big crime or disaster stories (which we would know about anyway).

I'm not even covering the vast amount of time devoted to video op-eds. I can get through life fine without knowing the brain droppings of pundits.

Cable news is part of the problem. Unless, I suppose, you have investments in it. Then, I guess, it makes sense to love it.

 

[Nicodemus]

So by using the word "her" in a sentence, it's sexist?

No, by mischaracterizing what happened.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

That is true. But not being able to fully identify with a party in no way bothers me. Were it not for parties, this country wouldn't be as fucked up as it is.

I'm not saying people have to have a party to identify with. While I'd prefer more parties participated in our system, I'd also prefer if more people voted on actual issues rather than voting on their allegiances.

Political parties suck but I'm not really sure what alternative you'd prefer. A single party system would suck. The two party system isn't much better than a single-party system.

 

[ceecee]

I'm not saying people have to have a party to identify with. While I'd prefer more parties participated in our system, I'd also prefer if more people voted on actual issues rather than voting on their allegiances.

Political parties suck but I'm not really sure what alternative you'd prefer. A single party system would suck. The two party system isn't much better than a single-party system.

I want more parties and for those parties to form a coalition behind one candidate when elections happen. Single party is communism and no one is advocating it. But no one is advocating multiple parties either. I want to see a labor party in the US. The Dems gave up on that and it's certainly not the GOP. But I think if things continue to move in the direction they are, we could see a labor party and an actual green party or whatever party. I think the closest thing we have are endorsements from other candidates but that's not a coalition.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

I'm not saying people have to have a party to identify with. While I'd prefer more parties participated in our system, I'd also prefer if more people voted on actual issues rather than voting on their allegiances.

Political parties suck but I'm not really sure what alternative you'd prefer. A single party system would suck. The two party system isn't much better than a single-party system.

An instant runoff type of election might be a solution worth considering. Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia

 

[Red Herring]

I want more parties and for those parties to form a coalition behind one candidate when elections happen. Single party is communism and no one is advocating it. But no one is advocating multiple parties either. I want to see a labor party in the US. The Dems gave up on that and it's certainly not the GOP. But I think if things continue to move in the direction they are, we could see a labor party and an actual green party or whatever party. I think the closest thing we have are endorsements from other candidates but that's not a coalition.

I think there would be room in the USA for far more than two parties: religious/social conservatives who don't have a problem with big government, socially more liberal conservatives who want a small government and low taxes, moderate liberals/ordocapitalists, a labor party that focuses on economic fairness but doesn't care as much about identity politics and a socially progressive left that favors government intervention, etc.

I am leaving out Greens because ecology has become such a big issue and will become even bigger so that it becomes less and less a question of left or right and more one of HOW to solve these serious issues (for example here in Germany only the extreme far right denies human made climate change, all the other parties from normal conservatives to the left all just differ on how to reduce carbon footprints and what or how much to sacrifice in order to achieve that)

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

An instant runoff type of election might be a solution worth considering. Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia

I've supported this in the past, as well as preference ballots.

 

[ceecee]

I think there would be room in the USA for far more than two parties: religious/social conservatives who don't have a problem with big government, socially more liberal conservatives who want a small government and low taxes, moderate liberals/ordocapitalists, a labor party that focuses on economic fairness but doesn't care as much about identity politics and a socially progressive left that favors government intervention, etc.

I am leaving out Greens because ecology has become such a big issue and will become even bigger so that it becomes less and less a question of left or right and more one of HOW to solve these serious issues (for example here in Germany only the extreme far right denies human made climate change, all the other parties from normal conservatives to the left all just differ on how to reduce carbon footprints and what or how much to sacrifice in order to achieve that)

Unfortunately conservative "foundations" like State Policy Network (SPN) have spread a six point climate denial talking point:

1) CO2 is not actually increasing.

2) Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.

3)Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.

4) Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.

5) Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.

6)Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it's too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.

It's ALWAYS been about doing nothing. This is now GOP and conservative policy. People will need to decide if they want to stay with this lie or move on. I think some kind of reformed party is a possibility, maybe that can contain green policy too.

I like the idea of instant run-off voting and preference ballots, too.

 

[Tomb1]

Natural selection will eventually thin out the inherent slave morality of the republican party; drones of flatheads who believe that virgin birth and human resurrection are biologically possible, that God created the universe in 7 days and that the earth is about 10,000 years old.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think there would be room in the USA for far more than two parties: religious/social conservatives who don't have a problem with big government, socially more liberal conservatives who want a small government and low taxes, moderate liberals/ordocapitalists, a labor party that focuses on economic fairness but doesn't care as much about identity politics and a socially progressive left that favors government intervention, etc.

I am leaving out Greens because ecology has become such a big issue and will become even bigger so that it becomes less and less a question of left or right and more one of HOW to solve these serious issues (for example here in Germany only the extreme far right denies human made climate change, all the other parties from normal conservatives to the left all just differ on how to reduce carbon footprints and what or how much to sacrifice in order to achieve that)

US clearly has room for more parties. The fact that some of their politicians are in the same party is absurd as much it is dysfunctional. Labor, Liberal, Conservative, Corporate, Libertarian ... there are many options.


Plus here we kinda don't have the green party. Since mainstream is doing something about this, not super much but no one claims it is a hoax. However even with this we are one of better ones in EU regarding CO2 trends (since we are "light" on industry). Plus bans regarding single use plastic are given a go, what currently is driven by conservative administration. Conserving environment and resources is actually a conservative position.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

CNN is likely colluding with Warren's campaign to sabotage Bernie's chances just like in 2016. One of the moderators pretty much called Bernie a liar.

"Senator Warren, how did you feel when Senator Sanders called you a loser with no chance in hell of winning any election?" what the CNN host was really thinking

As if you actually wanted Bernie to win this thing.