US Politics XII: shutting down Interference until @U2 agrees to pay for a firewall
- Thread starter DaveC
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Well if you gals would know your role they wouldn't have to
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Kamala Harris is running for President
Jerry Dunk
Refugee
The Democratic field is a mess. So many candidates with major flaws in their connections and policy positions, and really no obvious answer. Worse yet, half of the discussion is based around re-litigating the 2016 election, while the other half is about how we need to stop talking about people's policies because criticizing Democrats is akin to supporting Donald Trump. This has probably been the most disheartening part of all of this for me. The idea that Democrats cannot be scrutinized for fear of aiding the other side is a dangerous one, and it removes any incentive for them to improve in a meaningful way.
OP
OP
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
this. i got jumped on a few weeks ago in the previous thread here in FYM when i pointed out that beto's refusal to commit to any actual left-wing policy positions is worrisome. apparently i was "fight(ing) with our friends" and "doing it wrong".
Jerry Dunk
Refugee
I think people were fooled by the fact that he opposed Ted Cruz and made some good statements about police brutality. They think of that and assume his politics are farther to the left than they are. O'Rourke is not a lefty by any stretch.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...s-by-digging-into-clinton-obama-controversies
It's like a mental illness with these people.
It's like a mental illness with these people.
There's debating policy and then there's ignoring the greater evil.
I have zero interest in seeing Bernie Sanders elected president. Zero.
Well, almost zero. If it's Sanders or Trump, you better believe I'm voting for Bernie.
What worries those who are more towards the middle is that this won't be reciprocated by those on the left if the ultimate candidate ends up being someone who's closer to the middle.
It's not an irrational fear, either, based on 2016.
I have zero interest in seeing Bernie Sanders elected president. Zero.
Well, almost zero. If it's Sanders or Trump, you better believe I'm voting for Bernie.
What worries those who are more towards the middle is that this won't be reciprocated by those on the left if the ultimate candidate ends up being someone who's closer to the middle.
It's not an irrational fear, either, based on 2016.
Jerry Dunk
Refugee
The percentage of Clinton primary voters who refused to vote for Obama in 2008 was significantly higher than the percentage of Sanders voters who refused to vote for Clinton in 2016. Her loss to Trump was not because of Sanders supporters, and it would be ill-advised to go into 2020 thinking the issue was a lack of willingness on the part of those on the left to support a centrist like Clinton. That only leads to everything continuing to move to the right.
The more I see of Beto O'Rourke, the less I like him to be honest. I think that people should be able to say that without criticism. It should be understood that any final nominee should receive full support from all sane people in America who are able to cast a vote.
I didn't say Clinton lost because of Sanders voters staying home. Or Johnson voters. Or Stein voters. Or those who voted for Trump because whatever, they're all the same.
But when you add all that up, and consider the crazy small margin of victory he had?
Yea, it fucking mattered.
The difference? Maybe not; but it wasn't inconsequential.
I don't believe this race will be as close because Independent voters have been able to see Trump for who he really is. But this is no time for fucking around.
Absolutely
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
This is why we have primaries. To figure this stuff out.
But if anyone thinks we have the luxury of flattering ourselves with some kind of vanity vote that is for anyone other than the Democratic nominee in order to underscore our own virtue, then go fuck yourself.
But if anyone thinks we have the luxury of flattering ourselves with some kind of vanity vote that is for anyone other than the Democratic nominee in order to underscore our own virtue, then go fuck yourself.
Jerry Dunk
Refugee
I generally agree with this sentiment. It is how I proceeded with my voting in 2016. And while I think it is bad practice for any candidate to proceed as if they are entitled to votes, or that being better than the Republican candidate is all that is required to deserve victory, as a voter I understand how one needs to approach a presidential general election. Full stop.
My issue comes in how people approach the primaries. I see legitimate critiques of a bunch of these candidates, and often see blow back that it is aiding Trump. A good example is with Kamala Harris' announcement yesterday. Harris has a terrible record as a prosecutor. If you removed references to her name and just looked at which did as attorney general, you would likely assume she was a Republican. And yet I see people saying that it is a smear campaign to bring this up. This visceral defense of anyone with a "D" next to their name frightens me.
The Democratic primary itself is also a mess. The super delegate system is specifically designed to allow the party to bend the perception of how things are going to deter the voters from swinging things too far. The inconsistency of closed/open primaries from state-to-state, and putting great value into states that don't swing the general election also makes the process more confounding.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i'd be all for removing the 19th century notion of a caucus as well.
i agree that primaries should vet candidates, and we should approach with our values in mind, however, you cannot have a primary without an eye on the general and who will perform best in the general where independent voters will likely determine the outcome (as they always have, as they did in 2018), and in a general, yes, literally anyone with a "D" next to their name is better than Donald Trump.
i agree that primaries should vet candidates, and we should approach with our values in mind, however, you cannot have a primary without an eye on the general and who will perform best in the general where independent voters will likely determine the outcome (as they always have, as they did in 2018), and in a general, yes, literally anyone with a "D" next to their name is better than Donald Trump.
But the problem is you present this as fact rather than your opinion/stance.
I didn't know much about Kamala Harris aside from what I saw of her during some televised hearings. But I saw people on FB start attacking her for not allowing trans women to serve in women's prisons while she was AG of California. Admittedly, while I understand this to be a legitimate problem, I also rank it fairly low on the list of priorities when battling Trump. Nevertheless, I'm a lawyer, so I looked into her record as AG. And I really don't find it particularly problematic. That's because criminal justice as an issue is a spectrum, and you can fall along the spectrum more to the left, middle, or right just like on every other issue out there. It does NOT make her a Republican. We can discuss it like rational people but I don't have to agree with your stance and not agreeing with it doesn't mean that I'm presenting some sort of visceral defence of a person solely because of what party they identify with.
OP
OP
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
- fought to criminalize sex work even more than it already is
- deliberately makes no distinction between voluntary sex work and human trafficking, driving willing and voluntary sex workers into more dangerous aspects of the trade
- opposed legislation that would have required the DA's office to investigate all police shootings
- fought to keep people in jail even when there was strong evidence that they were innocent or wrongfully convicted
- refused to investigate blatant instances of racism and prejudice in the san francisco PD
- fought against reforms to solitary confinement policies in california prisons
- refused to allow a trans inmate to get gender reassignment surgery while in prison because reasons
- spent 20 grand advertising in black and latino neighbourhoods asking adults to snitch on truant school kids and threatened to throw truant children's parents in jail for their children's actions
she's been mildly better as a senator than as an attorney but holy shit her record in law enforcement is atrocious and yes i would absolutely assume (as would most people) that is the record of a republican if i didn't know better. she's basically a cop who now claims to have changed her ways.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/19/kamala-harris-2020-election-top-cop-prosecutor
- deliberately makes no distinction between voluntary sex work and human trafficking, driving willing and voluntary sex workers into more dangerous aspects of the trade
- opposed legislation that would have required the DA's office to investigate all police shootings
- fought to keep people in jail even when there was strong evidence that they were innocent or wrongfully convicted
- refused to investigate blatant instances of racism and prejudice in the san francisco PD
- fought against reforms to solitary confinement policies in california prisons
- refused to allow a trans inmate to get gender reassignment surgery while in prison because reasons
- spent 20 grand advertising in black and latino neighbourhoods asking adults to snitch on truant school kids and threatened to throw truant children's parents in jail for their children's actions
she's been mildly better as a senator than as an attorney but holy shit her record in law enforcement is atrocious and yes i would absolutely assume (as would most people) that is the record of a republican if i didn't know better. she's basically a cop who now claims to have changed her ways.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/19/kamala-harris-2020-election-top-cop-prosecutor
Can Twitter dummies stop posting pictures of the Covington Catholic basketball team throwing up threes as proof that they're all racist? You're not helping, dopes.
She was not a progressive prosecutor (I don’t know that such a thing exists to be honest). In terms of prosecutors she was about middle of the road. If that alone is disqualifying to some people, fine. But criminal justice is just one issue of many. If we’re disqualifying Dems on single issues then how many are out already? Biden and Bernie for sure.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Jerry Dunk
Refugee
I suppose it depends on the issue. Any Dem who won't run on Medicare for All is pretty much out in my book. "Affordability" and "access" are not things that drive people out to the polls, and they don't help nearly enough people. Similarly, any Dem who won't take climate change seriously is also out.
If Harris' only issue was that she was overbearing as a prosecutor, maybe I'd be alright with it. But there is plenty else to dislike about her platform. Regardless, I think her candidacy is a non-starter, so I'm not going to spend a tremendous amount of time fretting over it.
Biden is 100 percent out. He will get Me Too'd before he finishes a speech announcing his campaign.
Sanders has the most appealing platform of any Democratic candidate, in my view, and unfortunately there is a whole generation of Democrats that hate leftist policies. Consequently, there is no younger candidate more suited to run for president in his place with a similar platform. So while I don't think it's a generally good idea to run the elderly, the rest of the field is so bleak that I'm having a tough time imagining throwing support behind another candidate.
The two biggest issues with Sanders in his record/platform are his shitty record on guns, and his lack of a really defined foreign policy viewpoint (though his stance on Palestine is encouraging). That said, I don't see Sanders nominating any Supreme Court justices that would further entrench the gun lobby's position, so it's not a dealbreaker for me. Still, his record is very cowardly and a definite negative that he should have to continue to answer for.
His record on guns IS a deal breaker for me, at least through the primaries.
If he wins, I'll vote for him.
I really do not want him to win. Nor do I want Biden, for that matter.
Fresh blood is needed.
If he wins, I'll vote for him.
I really do not want him to win. Nor do I want Biden, for that matter.
Fresh blood is needed.
Jerry Dunk
Refugee
Fresh blood is badly needed, but as I outlined, seemingly the whole of Generation X in Democratic politics abandoned the left. What they need is to start finding more Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's to start building a strong, left coalition of young, energetic Democrats who have an eye on the future. There is a major appetite for many of the policies she is championing. That's the sort of thing that can drive out young voters, instead of desperately vying for some mythical batch of independents.
I did see upthread someone say that independents decide every election. I very much disagree with that, or at the very least would argue that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I did see upthread someone say that independents decide every election. I very much disagree with that, or at the very least would argue that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
So it turns out that if a video shows that you’re racist, and then additional video comes out that shows that other people acted like idiots, but still proves that you’re racist, you get invited to the White House! But that visit must wait until the racist President opens the government in which he’s holding hostage over his racist “wall”.
The Medicare for all would be great theme.
But what happens if a dem gets in and doesn’t get it passed? Much like Obamacare losing the public option
Will the left still support this candidate in the next cycle ? Will midterms swing to the gop again, or the MAGA party is what it should be called now
I’m fine with whatever (legal) it takes to get a dem back into the WH, but we have to still keep up the fight for congress and state races
But what happens if a dem gets in and doesn’t get it passed? Much like Obamacare losing the public option
Will the left still support this candidate in the next cycle ? Will midterms swing to the gop again, or the MAGA party is what it should be called now
I’m fine with whatever (legal) it takes to get a dem back into the WH, but we have to still keep up the fight for congress and state races
Oh good, this idiot is back.
https://twitter.com/JacobAWohl/stat...gainst-Kamala-Harris-Chris-Cuomo-Runs-With-It
https://twitter.com/JacobAWohl/stat...gainst-Kamala-Harris-Chris-Cuomo-Runs-With-It
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
The results of the 2018 election were due to the Democrats winning areas like Orange County, whichbis now almost entirely blue (if not totally). The base absolutely needs to turn out, but you win when you win the suburbs.
You will not move non-voters to vote by running a mythical candidate who will turn them out suddenly. That candidate has never materialized. The non-voters didn’t turn out for Bradley in 2000. They didn’t for Bernie. And they won’t suddenly awaken from their slumber in 2020.
Last edited:
trojanchick99
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
This Dem primary isn't as big a clusterfuck as the GOP because almost all the candidates are sane, and not racist. So there's that. As much as I can't wait to vote for AOC as President, that will need to wait. Right now there are quite a few Dem candidates I would be excited to vote for, Kamala Harris is one. Is she my perfect candidate? No. I haven't yet decided who I will vote for in the primary, but important issues will be climate, healthcare, immigration and gun control.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
My hope is, as we saw in 2018, this is the issue that gets D’s to the polls. The right has abortion, and to a lesser extent guns. The left needs something, and access to health care may be it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
