-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT2 | Warren's college tuition plan includes cancelling college debt
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Criminal justice.
Healthcare.
Guns.
Donors.
Protection of status quo and white supremacy
It's like she's 3 decades behind.
But of course a hyper partisan such as yourself can't recognize flaws in party annointed nominees.
Re: no advice given
His solution is to change US policy, not put the onus on Palestinians to change Israel and current US position. He criticizes the US policy of giving one-sided support to Israel with unlimited monetary and military support.
You're going to have be more specific because that describes millions of Democrats.
I agree she's done bad shit as a prosecutor, but how does that measure up to GOP prosecutors?
Her gun stance is being pro-gun control, banning assault weapons and universal background checks. And she happens to own a gun. How is that like a Republican?
Politicians having wealthy donors has been partisan for a long, long time. As in 1896.
And how "old" are you talking?
This too vague, can you be more specific?
Sure I can, unless you've ignored my posts about the various candidates. "Party annointed"? You think centrists and liberals shouldn't be able to run for president in their own primaries now?
I'd probably agree with plenty of what you have to say about the Dems as they are deeply flawed. However, it's difficult to have that conversation when political threads become polarising by simply being an openly loyal Democrat. When that's been a normal pastime for Americans, among other nations, for centuries.
After taking away the option of BDS and not advising anything to replace it that's basically saying to them to do nothing until an external force does something to save them. That's got to be a tough thing for them to accept as it doesn't appear that the US decreasing monetary and military support for Israel will ever happen. It just seems like more talk and stall as the walls close in on them.
The least you could do is pretend you live in a different timeline and placate people who want to have discussion on their terms and not the terms that that most realistically emulate the coming election. Not doing this is the problem in the first place and nothing else could possibly be.
Gop? Strawman. Said right wing.
Shouldn't be allowed to run? Strawman. Never said that
See why it's hard to have a rational discussion with you? :)
And yes. Guns and donors are problematic.
And so are centrists. Not being as bad as insane gop is not good enough. Sorry.
Also. Party loyalty is gross. How about you support actual principles instead?
Last edited:
While it's not a leftist agenda, a not insignificant portion of the electorate wants to ban all guns, so saying "no one wants to" is just untrue.
I backed up my arguments with facts and in greater detail based on the political parameters of the primaries showing Kamala Harris is a not a right winger. Why would I not want to debate abut politics based on our reality, rather than a fantasy time since that would be a waste of timeline for both of us. If they want their non-establishment candidates to win this election it'll happen in a realistic setting regardless whether I placate to alternative timelines where Democrats are right wingers. And it was barely a discussion, when I tried to get more in depth I didn't get anywhere.
Please elaborate on these issues that are troubling you about Harris involving criminal justice, health care, donors, guns, protection of the status quo and white supremacy.
These are deep complex issues and it's impossible to know what you're referring to and what troubles you specifically with just these headers.
Last edited:
Intellectual curiosity compels people to have hypothetical discussions all the time. It's how new ideas and solutions develop.
Having said that, this is the 2020 primary thread, so the discussion is rightfully limit to relevant topics.
Banning all guns is the most contentious policy you could make on top of being the least important in the face of everything else. Sensible gun control is all that should be pushed atm - even among Republican voters who seem to think the phrase "gun control" is a four letter word.
Even people who want to "ban all guns" don't think farmers in rural Wisconsin shouldn't have a shotgun to shoot coyotes trying to kill their livestock or something.
I suppose it is true that NO one would be a stretch.
But they are insignificant.
Not much difference, and you know it.
Implied.
I was trying to have a rational discussion with you.
They can be, I agree. But that's not the same as being a right winger.
Then you're in trouble as the centrists dominate politics in the left spectrum in the US.
Then your candidate is going to have a problem running in our primaries, since party loyalty is key to gaining the White House. I do, it's not mutually exclusive.
Except it wasn't framed as an alternative time line, the framing was that Kamala Harris was a right winger in this reality.
Let's just say you'll lose a lot more people than you could possibly hope to gain pushing a full on gun ban. Improving Gun control and banning AR's should the priority at the moment.
You know, looking at the data sets we have now, I'm gonna walk back the 'not insignificant' angle, because I was conflating the electorate's political will to ban handguns (and not just assault rifles) with all guns. Yes, technically, there doesn't appear to be significant support for banning shotguns, so I concede that point. Though I'd raise the point that many of the guns that people own now, a not insignificant portion of the electorate supports outright banning.
I was just speaking generally. Not about Kamala.
Sorry but Where the fuck did I imply ANY candidate SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO RUN? Where? How can I have a rational honest discussion with you when after I call out a strawman argument you then suggest I implied it?
My candidate? Projection. What's to politically expedient for a candidate is irrelevant to what's right for me to support as a principle. Party loyalty is something that I don't give a fuck about at all. And neither should you. Of course , because the gop is insane, there's almost no case that a decent candidate would ever vote with gop. But always supporting Democrats? FUCK THAT. That would mean agreeing that criticism of Israel should be punishable (absurd and constitutional violation) and decrying Omar, which is so gross I can't even fathom Democratic leadership did this.
You're not gonna get much sympathy for Ilhan from the Democratic loyalists here.
I guess, but you're clearly wrong in assuming my post was anything resembling "thoughts and prayers." I'm for gun control; most of the country is for gun control; gun control is happening in congress as we speak and it's bound go even further. I'm not, however, in support of a fool's errand such as "banning all guns" at this stage of the game; it would have any candidate advocating for it taken for a joke.
Last edited:
He's not taking BDS away from anybody -- he just doesn't support it personally/doesn't think it's productive -- I disagree with that, but it's dumb to lump him with people that literally ban BDS.
He's running for president. US changing their relationship with Israel/Palestine would naturally fall on him and a dem government.
Like, what do you think the Palestinians can do to change the mind of Trump and Bibi...? I think it's pretty hard to argue against the idea that Israel is able to do what they do because they have the unquestioning backing of the US, and that can only change by electing someone that thinks it needs to change.
edit: and Bernie is still one of the more pro Palestine candidates running as far as I know. He's not the only one to vote against the anti-BDS laws, but I don't think any of the frontrunners are actively pro-BDS or have more left views on Palestine. There are a lot of reasons to prefer other candidates over Bernie but him being soft on Israel is not one of them.
Last edited:
Wow, I was disappointed in Bernie on BDS, but he just killed any respect I have left for him.
And yes I know most politicians are worse, but his calls for Palestinians rights in the 2016 debate gave me respect for him where I had none for his peers.
Perhaps you're not intentionally misreading, so to clarify : taking it away was meant within the confines of the discussion of the the interview. It's what led to the follow up question that without BDS what could they do.
Legislation that will die in the senate.
Banning all guns may be impossible, but far more aggressive gun control policy than currently contemplated deserves just as much attention and fervor as UBI, eating the billionaires, et al.
Challenging white supremacy too uncomfortable for comfy centrists.
Speaking of white supremacy. Please, provide some elaboration on your post about Kamala Harris protecting white supremacy.
Funny that when it comes time to defend the most marginalized member of our legislature, all I hear from the woke liberals is equivocation.
I'm getting increasingly nervous that Major Pete could win the nomination. Not because I don't like him or think he'd be a bad president, quite the contrary! But because I'm more and more convinced that if registered Democrats give him the nomination we'd be resigning to 4 more years of Trump.
One thing is to elect a black man but, sadly, I don't think the US is ready to vote for a married gay man. No way in hell. I hope I'm wrong but I don't think I am. You have to bring independents and some moderate republicans to win this. A gay man I'm afraid will never be able to.
One thing is to elect a black man but, sadly, I don't think the US is ready to vote for a married gay man. No way in hell. I hope I'm wrong but I don't think I am. You have to bring independents and some moderate republicans to win this. A gay man I'm afraid will never be able to.
I understand the concern but watching Pete talk about and deal with his sexuality is pretty impressive. I think any losses from homophobes would be ameliorated by his Midewestern appeal. I was chatting about my partner about him the other day and we were discussing how Pete feels Obama 08'-like in a way-- a plan so wacky it just might work. And not that I think Obama is wacky but at the time, a black candidate with the name Barack Hussein Obama seemed kind of nuts. But his ability to reach people and to campaign helped transcend that. I think Pete could do the same.
All that said, I don't think he'll get the nomination.
Yeah i hate feeling like this. He may be my favorite candidate but I'm sad to say I think his sexuality could be our downfall if nominated. The US is not ready for a gay president, I'm afraid.
Ready or not, the US shouldn't have another war crime denier and anti-whistleblower in command.
If not for his sexuality, Pete would be chumming it up with Pence and the right.
I don't think a gay man is unelectable. The states that would hard pass on a gay president aren't gonna vote for a Democrat in the first place, and I feel like swing states are generally more tolerant on this point than most people realize. Pete's age and relative inexperience would probably hurt him more than his sexuality.
Pete's not my first choice but this is silly.He supports
single payer health care
Increased taxes on the wealthy
Green new deal
Is pro choice
Wants universal background checks for guns
It's ridiculous to suggest only his sexuality is keeping him from being a republican. Why is it always Bernie fans who post like this? Not everyone even slightly to the right of Bernie is a secret Republican
The dude also wrote an essay in 2000 in praise of Sanders-- fifteen years before he came out.
But yeah, he'd for sure be an arch conservative if he weren't gay. Really, what a bizarre, desperate and offensive take that is.
Buttigieg's entry into the essay contest was about Sanders being brave enough to work with Republicans despite using the "socialist" label and contained no positive words for Bernie's policies. (Pete praises Pat Buchanan in the essay, too. He's also explicitly started that he wrote the essay in order to get his foot in the door as a politician.) You can read it for yourself at the JFK Library online.
Buttigieg's book also makes clear that he doesn't subscribe to progressive values, from his description of his college years to his military service (including his incredible position that no one could have known Saddam didn't have nukes) to his time as mayor. He's a white elitist through and through, one who couldn't care less about social activists, the poor, the homeless, brown people, or black people.
Yes, I've read it. He doesn't praise Buchanan in it. That's a lie, much like your assertion that Pete would be an arch conservative if he were not gay. What he says about Buchanan is this: "Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush uses the centrist rhetoric of "compassionate conservatism" while Pat Buchanan, once considered a mainstream Republican, has been driven off the ideological edge of the G.O.P."
He praises Sanders for what he sees as his having the courage of his convictions. But you know, that must have been what, his latent gayness talking or...?
Read his essay. Read his book. Read/watch his interviews from 2017-ish. Heck, listen to his recent comments on Snowden and Manning, Israel and Palestine.
Here's the part of Pete's essay where he praises Bernie for "working with Republicans."
Truly disgusting stuff.
EDIT: And policies:
I mean, he doesn't literally say 'THIS IS A GOOD POLICY" after every example, but with the tone of the essay as a whole that's pretty much implicit.
Truly disgusting stuff.
EDIT: And policies:
I mean, he doesn't literally say 'THIS IS A GOOD POLICY" after every example, but with the tone of the essay as a whole that's pretty much implicit.
- Status