Yup. And the Dems in stage saying "better things aren't possible" isn't inspiring and if those people won the nom, people would stay at home.
-
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 Presidential Democratic Primary Debates 3&4 |OT| July 30-31, 2019
- Thread starter SweetNicole
- Start date
- Status
The filibuster absolutely has to be removed. It makes no sense for you to need 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill through the Senate. It's already hard enough to get bills passed when you need to have all of the House, Senate, AND executive branch under control of one party.
Obama and Reid had so many missed opportunities because he was too afraid to nuke the filibuster.
Completely ignoring that doing what your asking is a non-starter in US politics, including with a socialist president. You don't have a socialist majority in congress to help you here. To date you have 7 freshmen Representatives and an elderly Senator.
I agree they need to work on being inspiring, except having an inspiring message alone won't cut it to get what you want and I think you know that. The last time that "inspiring" message failed against the establishment on top of this so the argument that it's an electoral winner on the national scale has not been proven in presidential or large scale state wide elections.
In the current political landscape "electability" is code for being able to pander to large donors and not threatening to the wealthy white ruling class.
It actually has almost nothing to do with having any favorable polling on policy.
See how age, color, gender, etc. are brought up as liabilities for "unelectable" candidates but considered assets or ignored for "electable" ones. On this very forum and by the corporate media
If the mission is to help children and years later nothing is done about it then you should stop talking about it? Really? This is the most mindnumbing stupid criticism of bernie i have ever heard. The hell is wrong with you/people like you?
It seems that you're the one who doesn't understand how it works. You vote on candidates' vision / ideals / ideal policies that those candidates want to bring forth. You can't expect candidates to bring forth the exact policies that will be accepted by the country at large, because the compromising and negotiation is what happens afterward. What you're asking for is for them to do the negotiations by themselves, beforehand? How does that make any sense? Do you haggle for prices by starting with the exact amount of what you think they'll go for, or do you start by asking for more than you even want?
Not to mention the fact that virtually all politicians are outright liars most of the time, and will say anything just to get elected. In order to discern between people you need to see how genuine they are, see if they trip up and get caught in lies etc..
What you're calling "pragmatism" is both closing yourself off for potentially more, as well as cutting off a good chunk of information to discern if politicians are in good faith or not.
But then again, with arguments like yours, I don't believe it's in good faith to be honest. I can't believe that anyone who would want the things that Warren and Sanders want, could ever consciously choose to not vote for the people who also want that. Why would you ever do that? I don't get it. Even if you think you'll end up at the same point eventually, why would you want to cut off the possibility of getting closer to what you actually want? I don't believe that you want the same, but if you do, then I'd like to go in a bit deeper on that, because it's quite a sad thing to see if it's true to be honest.
Besides Sanders and Warren, all those candidates last night were absolutely terrible, stop wasting everyone's time with these bullshit candidates up there with no chance
didn't watch the debate but it sounds like Bernie and Warren have some dead bodies to dispose of
Lol.
First, pragmatism is basically code for being non threatening to white ruling class
Second, so called pragmatism is horrible politically. See our current predicaments.
Third, pragmatism would be horrible policy wise. If Republicans agree with you on something that a progressive disagrees with, it's likely horrible. So even when you win, you lose.
Fourth, you don't win, because it's horrible politics. See our current situation
You've always got such great insight into issues with the tactics of the left. Have you considered getting involved and helping them out in the real world instead of spending 14 hours a day writing dozens of essay length posts on a forum that nobody pays any attention to?
Last I check, we still got the same fuckin problems from 5 years ago.
It's weird how donald trump lost the 2016 election by appealing to his base and attacking the rich. I guess he just wasn't "electable" enough.
You're right. Repeating the same message over and over again didn't work for obama and trump and it won't work for bernie.
Last edited:
Sometimes I wish he would talk more about outlawing gay marriage, cutting taxes for the rich, and invading Iran. You know, to mix it up! So tired of hearing the same message from him.
User Banned (1 Day): Antagonizing other members
Speaking of mindnumbing...
Does the Church of Bernie realize that this campaign strategy lost in 2016? Were you old enough to be following politics at that point?
PS: It's 'mindnumbingly'.
Buttigieg actually carries himself very well. Even if you don't agree with his policies.
He isn't going to win the nomination, but this is a good chance for him to escape Indiana and into national politics. Probably via some sort of Cabinet role or something.
*With full control of congress for two years and a conservative majority on SCOTUS.
"Pragmatism" will also fail, given Republicans will stonewall absolutely everything any Dem does. There is no reason not to fight to make socialism popular when one side is openly getting in bed with a nascent fascism.
lmao this is the worst post. bro remember when pragmatist icon Hillary Clinton lost to a TV guy who promised a gigantic wall across the entire southern border?
the number one issue in 2018 was health care.
Half of Trump's administration isn't approved by the senate. He's also shown that the president has massive discretionary powers wrt, immigration, military action, etc. Even something as simple as the decision to not to do something, is powerful. We can't take it as a given that all dems are as anti-war as Bernie, for instance.
She's not a real candidate, so I don't hold her to the same standards as real candidates.
For reference though: I don't mind a lot of her statements on physical health (in a sort of Buddhist "two truths doctrine" type way, accepting the reality of the world while also rejecting the physical) but I don't think she should be trusted in an authority in the matters of physical and shouldn't have presented herself in that way if/when she has. But I haven't read enough of her self-help guru nonsense to know the full philosophical framework she's working with and will admit I'm probably reading my own presumptions into it - it's entirely possible she's just an idiot.
Loved Warren last night. Thought her and Bernie stole the show. Beto was saying good words but often was cut off or didn't get to get his point across, he also just looks so worn out, kinda forgot he was on stage most of the time. I also liked what Pete had to say for the most part but I can't abide by his stance on Israel. The rest of the cast, Montana, the-old-guy-not-bernie, and ThiccZucc were either invisible or came off as corporate stooges looking to maintain the status quo. Marianne dropped some nuggets but it's time for her to exit the stage as well.
Don't really think that is the best way to look at it, I think you should just be asking yourself who appealed most to me as a voter.
That said Delaney and Tim Ryan are losers.
I don't know about that, educating people about civics here is a full time job by itself which is badly needed. Why are you more worried about erasing my voice than listening to it and having a genuine conversation. How is that being progressive?
Don't think haven't noticed you dodging what I actually said. Ignoring those very real issues in your movement isn't going to help in the real world.
And you think the man whose campaign died on Super Tuesday against her will beat Trump?
Well in that case at least you would be happy to know that the consensus seems to be she killed it. And imo she did.
Oh nice catch. Sometimes you forget a letter or two when you see shit arguments. How you enjoying president hilary?
God I hope the US sees sense, almost as much as I wish Britain would lol
Again that wasn't the conversation I was having but thanks
I don't really know what you mean by half of his "administration". A bunch of WH staff / senior advisors don't need Senate confirmation. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kellyanne aren't a demonstration of Executive power. This has always been the case. This doesn't mean anything with regard to enacting an agenda, cf Cabinet and Cabinet-level appointments.
As for war-powers, there isn't anything new about POTUS having these. Congress authorises the funding for this though.
If anything, the things that Trump is doing now to reverse Obama's agenda via executive order reflect how hamstrung Obama was, in having to e.g. resort to Executive Orders to enact his agenda because he had insufficient legislative control outside of a brief stint of full control.
The things that the candidates are talking about in terms of their policy agenda are largely not things that can be done without Congress.
Warren was great. Bernie was pretty fired up but it was his normal stuff. Pete's going to be pretty formidable in these things after a little more experience and uncorked some zingers. Beto did better and seems like he might have a chance at having a pulse in a couple months. Think he's stabilized his campaign and he's not falling anymore, but breaking back out will be hard. My Midwestern mom liked Klobuchar.
Bullock has an 80s teen movie bully voice and definitely screwed up on the nuclear proliferation question. Too bad, because I'd rather have him be around then some of the no-name congresspeople or Yang/Williamson. Delaney was a punching bag. Hickenlooper's probably a cabinet position guy.
Was better then the NBC debate with everyone yelling over each other, but CNN framing everything with Republican talking points and stirring it up was bad.
Bullock has an 80s teen movie bully voice and definitely screwed up on the nuclear proliferation question. Too bad, because I'd rather have him be around then some of the no-name congresspeople or Yang/Williamson. Delaney was a punching bag. Hickenlooper's probably a cabinet position guy.
Was better then the NBC debate with everyone yelling over each other, but CNN framing everything with Republican talking points and stirring it up was bad.
What he's ignoring is that the former is a lot easier to get through congress than what he's proposing. Had Bernie's idea been that simple he'd have managed it decades ago.
I am completely shocked that Nate Silver said something negative about Bernie.
Even with Congress, given the make up of the Supreme Court, I don't think Medicare for all could last a legal challenge. Same with many of Warren's plans - even ones that are widely seen as reasonable like the wealth tax (I think as we saw Delaney argue). We have seen that Obamacare, a moderate proposal, can't survive legal challenges either. That's even after the uphill battle to get dems to vote for good policies. It's never been my stance that Bernie or Warren or whoever can wave a wand and pass the policies we see on their websites issues page, as we see them.
I'm saying the president has massive discretionary powers (congress or no congress, Supreme Court or not) and God-forbidding it comes down to it, I'd much rather have Bernie being a lame duck president than, say Biden. Or even worse, see where Biden and republicans agree. "As for war-powers, there isn't anything new about POTUS having these." Is this not what I'm saying? This is a massive responsibility the president has and i'd much rather trust certain candidates with it than others, especially if we have a republican congress.
What I was referring to was the dozen or so federal agencies (I believe) that currently have acting heads, or heads that have not even been nominated by trump. Including the DHS and I think UN ambassador, and many other positions. Clearly this is not a good thing, but I think it demonstrates how much of Trump's influence in the government has come purely by virtue of him being president - without the senate.
Instead of advocating for pragmatism, maybe you should advocate for the changing of a conservative political system which stonewalls progress.
The USA needs Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, strengthing of voting rights, the abolishment of the electoral college, the removal of the senate filibuster, the ending of gerrymandering and more.
Sanders and Warren teamed up and murdered anyone in their path.
Buttigieg and Williamson did ok. Beto and Delaney sucked, but Delaney got his name out there. They should drop out.
I don't remember who else was there but they should also pack it up.
Oh no, you misunderstood! he (surprisingly) thought Bernie did pretty good.
That's such a stupid thing to criticise about. What, you want politicians to change stances every few years like Biden, Hillary, and Harris? I'd much rather have a "broken record" advocating to combat the same problems for years than someone just going with the political flow.
I think warren will be run over by Trump's way of 'debating'. Sanders is the choice for me when watching these debates.
As a non American, it's unbelievable how all these sponsored candidates can run. Big donors are just one of the diseases in the American politics system.
As a non American, it's unbelievable how all these sponsored candidates can run. Big donors are just one of the diseases in the American politics system.
I think bernie will get the nom,
Free health care and $15/hr min wage a good pledges.
Universal basic income is better, but bernie is more well known and a better speaker.
I wish he would cut out his "we need a grass roots movement" and "when we live in a system where the top 1% are richer then the bottom 99%, we need a political revolution"
Yes they sound good when he says it, but free health care for all and $15/hr min wage are actual solutions. And I think it better to say actual policy changes then broader philosophical soundbites.
He should just say
Free health care and $15/hr min wage a good pledges.
Universal basic income is better, but bernie is more well known and a better speaker.
I wish he would cut out his "we need a grass roots movement" and "when we live in a system where the top 1% are richer then the bottom 99%, we need a political revolution"
Yes they sound good when he says it, but free health care for all and $15/hr min wage are actual solutions. And I think it better to say actual policy changes then broader philosophical soundbites.
He should just say
- Free health care for all
- $15/hr min wage
- infrastructure spending
Yup. It seems for years that the Democrats choose to focus on compromising/watering-down on policies to appease Republicans instead of actually pushing left policies that could help people. if Republicans are capable of major, earth-shaking right-focused changes once they get in power then how come the Democrats can't? Or rather, why do Democrats always need to adjust their policies for a Republican palate instead of just taking the initiative to make their changes regardless. This debate proves that you have some democrat candidates who want to drive significant change (Warren/Sanders) and others who are merely willing to maintain the status quo in a safe manner with democrat butts in the driving seat (the rest).
One thing I don't understand is why bernie and others want to do away with private health care altogether.
In UK we have the NHS anyone can use the NHS, but we also have other health are companies and if you want you can pay for them
In UK we have the NHS anyone can use the NHS, but we also have other health are companies and if you want you can pay for them
- Status