2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
User avatar
rclark
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1111
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1223
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Finasteride 1 mg daily, Progesterone 2% (22mg daily), Minoxidil 15% hair growth only).
Using 1.5 mm needle on all bald/balding areas weekly.

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by rclark » 1 week ago

That Guy wrote:
1 week ago
Democracy is fake and gay.

Is that simple enough for you?

? I don't get it. So, you are against democracy?

Only the U.S. President gets elected by the Electorate college. That's it. Everybody else is voted in.

I thought you were a "majority rules" person?

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 571
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1157
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by JLBB » 1 week ago

nameless wrote:
2 weeks ago
You are a total moron. She was trying to appeal to black people's sense of grievance AND she succeeded you fool. You don''t even know what happens when it happens right out in plain view.

And why are you bringing up the crime bill when Harris said nothing about the crime bill? All she whined about was busing and Biden's admitted negotiations with segregationists. That is the subject I brought up. You can veer off subject if you want but if you do then the shit you say won't apply to my original post because y original post was about her use of busing as a strategy and black people's sense of grievance to peel black votes away from Biden and put those black votes in her column. She did not say anything about the crime bill at the debate so the crime bill was not part of the original issue I raised. Try to keep your eye on the ball, idiot.

Back to my original point now...Harris got black people to turn against Biden, which was what she was trying to do, by reminding them of their sense of grievance against whites. BUT at the time busing was actually happening black people were opposed to busing. They wanted it to stop too. That's right, idiot. Her entire argument is a false argument. It wasn't just white people who were opposed to busing. It was majorities of white AND BLACK PEOPLE who were opposed to busing when it was happening. She used a phony argument to bring black people's feelings of grievance to the surface.

SHE PLAYED THE RACE CARD. IT WORKED. AND IT WAS THE RACE CARD.

Added in 1 minute 5 seconds:


That's your opinion, not mine. My opinion is that she played the race card and she appealed the black people's sense of grievance.
If you knew what the crime bill was and how it related to race in the United States in terms of incarceration rates and how it disproportionately effected black people, you'd understand that me bringing it up wasn't out of context. The conversation was regarding debate questions on race, if you can't see its relevant its obvious you're clueless on the issue to begin with.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1362
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3431
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 week ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 week ago
It’s early but I give him 45% chance of winning if it was held today and I’m being generous. He flipped a few states by very low numbers. I don’t see him doing that again.

I can be wrong of course and it may change but I’ve never seen this kind of fatigue, even from people who voted for him (other than his Trumpster base), in my life.
But who knows.
I've also met Trumpers who have changed their mind, but he's an outstanding campaigner, which will facilitate changing their minds back.

The Democrats are going to lose a lot of ground if the intellectually dishonest promises of reparations and open borders makes it into the public space.

How representative of the country would you consider your circle to be?

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 571
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1157
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by JLBB » 1 week ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
2 weeks ago
Did this really deserve its own thread? A single thread for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination might be ideal.

For JLBB, here is a counterargument, I'm not endorsing it but it's competent:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... l-history/
I haven't read from this source before but the fundamental issue with this article I see is that he writes purely from the perspective of a conservative against the entire Democratic party, with no interest in the feelings of the Democratic voterbase. In turn the entire article comes across as worthless and irrelevant to who its targeted at. Its also written heavily to support bipartisanship in a time where the party in power experiencing the gridlock is Republican, so of course conservatives are looking for more willingness towards it. Michael Bennet, an otherwise useless bore successfully attacked Biden in regards to this emphasising the fact that one of his bipartisan moves was to support a bill under Obama that made the Bush tax cuts permanent.

"if today’s rancorous discourse and gridlock politics are a serious problem, as many Americans clearly believe, then he is a man who knows how to address that problem, in part because of his experiences from an era of greater comity."

There's virtually not a single person who things the gridlock is the problem, they simply object to their own policy ideas not being able to pass more freely. Are we seriously going to pretend there are Democrats out there thinking the real problem is congressional gridlock? Ridiculous argument. Feelings on issues in gridlock are purely partisan. Republicans are mildly interested in bipartisanship under Biden because they believe they can still implement shreds of a conservative agenda under him, unlike under a Sanders or Warren.

" Would she respect him more if he had insulted his segregationist colleagues to their faces to demonstrate his political and moral purity? Or, having worked with them, should he insult their memory now to demonstrate, retroactively, his purity? "

To the second question, the fact that the writer can't understand why the base of the Democratic party would like a candidate that attacks segregationists and expresses distaste for having worked with them, even those who are dead is absolutely laughable. Even most Democrats aren't heavily into pressing identity politics, but the subject is LITERALLY about disavowing segregationists, its the lowest of low bars and if Biden can't do that yes its a fucking problem for Democrats in 2019. Even for most Republicans and conservatives it makes him look out of touch. Social issues are still central to the party, and here we have a man who aggressively stated in a debate he didn't support busing desegregation by the federal government. In 2019, that sounds very, very bad to the average voter.

The Mondale incident should be looked at in reference to Bidens actual track record on policy, rather than a standalone evidence of successful bipartisanship. Does his time under Obama or his development of the crime bill reflect a successful use of bipartisanship to secure policies which benefited race relations or civil rights? Absolutely not. Telling though that almost half the article refers to an incident completely separate to Biden himself and fails to find any supporting evidence for Biden as a defender of civil rights. His track record as a Democrat or a genuine leftist in terms of bipartisanship is horrifc, and what exactly is this idiot writer expecting he could achieve that would appease the country as a whole, both Democrat and Republican through it?

Added in 5 minutes 58 seconds:
Hairblues wrote:
1 week ago
It’s early but I give him 45% chance of winning if it was held today and I’m being generous. He flipped a few states by very low numbers. I don’t see him doing that again.

I can be wrong of course and it may change but I’ve never seen this kind of fatigue, even from people who voted for him (other than his Trumpster base), in my life.
But who knows.
I honestly have no idea the percentage chance and think its heavily dependent on candidate and ultimately voter turnout, but the swing states that took him over the line last time were certainly won by a scary small amount of votes. Ideally he will end up with an opponent like Biden for whom enthusiasm and a core base is low for, hopefully suppressing turnout.

I think he would likely decimate a Biden, but a Kamala or Warren would be dependent on how well he digs up and emphasising dirt on them, which he did very well on Hillary. The option is certainly there against Kamala where there's plenty of material to do so, not sure about Warren but he can always call her Pocahontas.

Added in 2 minutes 20 seconds:
That Guy wrote:
1 week ago
Yeah, you know...the whole electoral college debate is something that should be waking more people up to the problem of democracy. This debate is one of the funniest out there because the "democracy is everything" crowd are the biggest defenders of something that interferes with it!



Yes, Mr. Fist. Curious that...If it weren't for the electoral college, the large coastal cities would decide basically every election and you'd never dislodge the democrats. Kinda like how, once America is majority mud, you won't dislodge them ever again.

Image

He quotes James Madison in here. The screenshot quotes: "Overbearing majority uses their superior force to violate the rules of justice"

This is lolbertarianism at its best. We need to remember that everyone is an individual! We also need to respect democracy! We should also not prevent companies and corporations from abusing human rights because muh free market! The government shouldn't even exist! BUT we need to have an electoral college so that shitlibs in California can't assure a perpetual democrat victory!

Just fucking lol

To think I used to ever talk to this guy. Used to be friends with his ex-girlfriend too.

I wonder if he also knows that James Madison also said: "Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths"
The people of colour should all be rounded up and sent to New York, who would likely be happy to have and pay for them.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1362
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3431
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 week ago

JLBB wrote:
1 week ago
I haven't read from this source before but the fundamental issue with this article I see is that he writes purely from the perspective of a conservative against the entire Democratic party, with no interest in the feelings of the Democratic voterbase. In turn the entire article comes across as worthless and irrelevant to who its targeted at. Its also written heavily to support bipartisanship in a time where the party in power experiencing the gridlock is Republican, so of course conservatives are looking for more willingness towards it. Michael Bennet, an otherwise useless bore successfully attacked Biden in regards to this emphasising the fact that one of his bipartisan moves was to support a bill under Obama that made the Bush tax cuts permanent.

"if today’s rancorous discourse and gridlock politics are a serious problem, as many Americans clearly believe, then he is a man who knows how to address that problem, in part because of his experiences from an era of greater comity."

There's virtually not a single person who things the gridlock is the problem, they simply object to their own policy ideas not being able to pass more freely. Are we seriously going to pretend there are Democrats out there thinking the real problem is congressional gridlock? Ridiculous argument. Feelings on issues in gridlock are purely partisan. Republicans are mildly interested in bipartisanship under Biden because they believe they can still implement shreds of a conservative agenda under him, unlike under a Sanders or Warren.

" Would she respect him more if he had insulted his segregationist colleagues to their faces to demonstrate his political and moral purity? Or, having worked with them, should he insult their memory now to demonstrate, retroactively, his purity? "

To the second question, the fact that the writer can't understand why the base of the Democratic party would like a candidate that attacks segregationists and expresses distaste for having worked with them, even those who are dead is absolutely laughable. Even most Democrats aren't heavily into pressing identity politics, but the subject is LITERALLY about disavowing segregationists, its the lowest of low bars and if Biden can't do that yes its a fucking problem for Democrats in 2019. Even for most Republicans and conservatives it makes him look out of touch. Social issues are still central to the party, and here we have a man who aggressively stated in a debate he didn't support busing desegregation by the federal government. In 2019, that sounds very, very bad to the average voter.

The Mondale incident should be looked at in reference to Bidens actual track record on policy, rather than a standalone evidence of successful bipartisanship. Does his time under Obama or his development of the crime bill reflect a successful use of bipartisanship to secure policies which benefited race relations or civil rights? Absolutely not. Telling though that almost half the article refers to an incident completely separate to Biden himself and fails to find any supporting evidence for Biden as a defender of civil rights. His track record as a Democrat or a genuine leftist in terms of bipartisanship is horrifc, and what exactly is this idiot writer expecting he could achieve that would appease the country as a whole, both Democrat and Republican through it?

Added in 5 minutes 58 seconds:


I honestly have no idea the percentage chance and think its heavily dependent on candidate and ultimately voter turnout, but the swing states that took him over the line last time were certainly won by a scary small amount of votes. Ideally he will end up with an opponent like Biden for whom enthusiasm and a core base is low for, hopefully suppressing turnout.

I think he would likely decimate a Biden, but a Kamala or Warren would be dependent on how well he digs up and emphasising dirt on them, which he did very well on Hillary. The option is certainly there against Kamala where there's plenty of material to do so, not sure about Warren but he can always call her Pocahontas.
You've been writing at a particular high level of late.

Added in 7 minutes 5 seconds:
JLBB wrote:
1 week ago
The people of colour should all be rounded up and sent to New York, who would likely be happy to have and pay for them.
Though this last part is uninformed.

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1008
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2021
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by That Guy » 1 week ago

rclark wrote:
1 week ago
? I don't get it. So, you are against democracy?
Yeah.
rclark wrote:
1 week ago
I thought you were a "majority rules" person?
Yeah, in the sense that "Whites should be the majority and rulers of their own countries".

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 911
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1600
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Hairblues » 1 week ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 week ago
I've also met Trumpers who have changed their mind, but he's an outstanding campaigner, which will facilitate changing their minds back.

The Democrats are going to lose a lot of ground if the intellectually dishonest promises of reparations and open borders makes it into the public space.

How representative of the country would you consider your circle to be?
Very. I’m not talking about New Yorkers.

I’m confident in my observations.

Added in 2 hours 46 minutes 44 seconds:
JLBB wrote:
1 week ago
I haven't read from this source before but the fundamental issue with this article I see is that he writes purely from the perspective of a conservative against the entire Democratic party, with no interest in the feelings of the Democratic voterbase. In turn the entire article comes across as worthless and irrelevant to who its targeted at. Its also written heavily to support bipartisanship in a time where the party in power experiencing the gridlock is Republican, so of course conservatives are looking for more willingness towards it. Michael Bennet, an otherwise useless bore successfully attacked Biden in regards to this emphasising the fact that one of his bipartisan moves was to support a bill under Obama that made the Bush tax cuts permanent.

"if today’s rancorous discourse and gridlock politics are a serious problem, as many Americans clearly believe, then he is a man who knows how to address that problem, in part because of his experiences from an era of greater comity."

There's virtually not a single person who things the gridlock is the problem, they simply object to their own policy ideas not being able to pass more freely. Are we seriously going to pretend there are Democrats out there thinking the real problem is congressional gridlock? Ridiculous argument. Feelings on issues in gridlock are purely partisan. Republicans are mildly interested in bipartisanship under Biden because they believe they can still implement shreds of a conservative agenda under him, unlike under a Sanders or Warren.

" Would she respect him more if he had insulted his segregationist colleagues to their faces to demonstrate his political and moral purity? Or, having worked with them, should he insult their memory now to demonstrate, retroactively, his purity? "

To the second question, the fact that the writer can't understand why the base of the Democratic party would like a candidate that attacks segregationists and expresses distaste for having worked with them, even those who are dead is absolutely laughable. Even most Democrats aren't heavily into pressing identity politics, but the subject is LITERALLY about disavowing segregationists, its the lowest of low bars and if Biden can't do that yes its a fucking problem for Democrats in 2019. Even for most Republicans and conservatives it makes him look out of touch. Social issues are still central to the party, and here we have a man who aggressively stated in a debate he didn't support busing desegregation by the federal government. In 2019, that sounds very, very bad to the average voter.

The Mondale incident should be looked at in reference to Bidens actual track record on policy, rather than a standalone evidence of successful bipartisanship. Does his time under Obama or his development of the crime bill reflect a successful use of bipartisanship to secure policies which benefited race relations or civil rights? Absolutely not. Telling though that almost half the article refers to an incident completely separate to Biden himself and fails to find any supporting evidence for Biden as a defender of civil rights. His track record as a Democrat or a genuine leftist in terms of bipartisanship is horrifc, and what exactly is this idiot writer expecting he could achieve that would appease the country as a whole, both Democrat and Republican through it?

Added in 5 minutes 58 seconds:


I honestly have no idea the percentage chance and think its heavily dependent on candidate and ultimately voter turnout, but the swing states that took him over the line last time were certainly won by a scary small amount of votes. Ideally he will end up with an opponent like Biden for whom enthusiasm and a core base is low for, hopefully suppressing turnout.

I think he would likely decimate a Biden, but a Kamala or Warren would be dependent on how well he digs up and emphasising dirt on them, which he did very well on Hillary. The option is certainly there against Kamala where there's plenty of material to do so, not sure about Warren but he can always call her Pocahontas.

Added in 2 minutes 20 seconds:


The people of colour should all be rounded up and sent to New York, who would likely be happy to have and pay for them.

We would be happy to take them and also stop paying most of the taxes that go to the rest of this country.

You value cash right? Money is power? Then NY and California, the two states that politically you probably disagree With the most, should theoretically have the most power since we are the biggest earners. Instead buba sitting on the front lawn of his trailer with his Maga hat has mkre say due to an antiquated electoral college system.
I’m not saying that’s what should happen or what I believe but when I see posts like that it makes me laugh. Sure we will take minorities and poor and we’lol keep our federal cash too.

Well include Nj and Mass in that as well.
Attachments
B76B2F98-051A-464B-9A90-0D230192F4F4.jpeg
B76B2F98-051A-464B-9A90-0D230192F4F4.jpeg (249.56 KiB) Viewed 301 times

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1362
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3431
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 week ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 week ago
Very. I’m not talking about New Yorkers.

I’m confident in my observations.

Added in 2 hours 46 minutes 44 seconds:

We would be happy to take them and also stop paying most of the taxes that go to the rest of this country.

You value cash right? Money is power? Then NY and California, the two states that politically you probably disagree With the most, should theoretically have the most power since we are the biggest earners. Instead buba sitting on the front lawn of his trailer with his Maga hat has mkre say due to an antiquated electoral college system.
I’m not saying that’s what should happen or what I believe but when I see posts like that it makes me laugh. Sure we will take minorities and poor and we’lol keep our federal cash too.

Well include Nj and Mass in that as well.
They're all really weird comments. I think that anybody who is remotely familiar with the USA knows that each of the major geographic areas and demographic groups contribute to making America as it is.

New York is the financial and cultural capitals of the country. The smaller states though often provide a lot of natural resources and contribute disproportionately to the military.

You are all Americans. I've lived here for eight years now, and i enjoy small Midwestern towns like I enjoy Florida like I enjoy Manhattan. It's all part of the country.

Comments dismissing African Americans are quite ignorant. The country was largely industrialized and modernized from the profits made from the cotton trade, so they did help build the country, and indispensably so. They fought as soldiers in both world wars, Vietnam, and elsewhere.

A lot of American culture originates from African American culture, including most of its music (country, rap, jazz, disco, funk, hip hop, etc). Though it's true that African Americans contribute a disproportionate fraction of violent crime, Whites meanwhile do so for white-collar crimes, some of which is not even classified as crime but includes the mortgage crisis, the war on Iraq, the pushing of opiates, etc, which are arguably a lot more harmful.

User avatar
Hairblues
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 911
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1600
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Topical minoxidil and finasteride

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Hairblues » 1 week ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 week ago
They're all really weird comments. I think that anybody who is remotely familiar with the USA knows that each of the major geographic areas and demographic groups contribute to making America as it is.

New York is the financial and cultural capitals of the country. The smaller states though often provide a lot of natural resources and contribute disproportionately to the military.

You are all Americans. I've lived here for eight years now, and i enjoy small Midwestern towns like I enjoy Florida like I enjoy Manhattan. It's all part of the country.

Comments dismissing African Americans are quite ignorant. The country was largely industrialized and modernized from the profits made from the cotton trade, so they did help build the country, and indispensably so. They fought as soldiers in both world wars, Vietnam, and elsewhere.

A lot of American culture originates from African American culture, including most of its music (country, rap, jazz, disco, funk, hip hop, etc). Though it's true that African Americans contribute a disproportionate fraction of violent crime, Whites meanwhile do so for white-collar crimes, some of which is not even classified as crime but includes the mortgage crisis, the war on Iraq, the pushing of opiates, etc, which are arguably a lot more harmful.
My comment was purposely extreme to make a point to out ausie friend. I thought that was obvious.
I can’t tell if this comment about America is directed to me or him since you quoted me.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1362
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3431
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 week ago

Hairblues wrote:
1 week ago
My comment was purposely extreme to make a point to out ausie friend. I thought that was obvious.
I can’t tell if this comment about America is directed to me or him since you quoted me.
It's not really directed at you. I think that you understand all of this. I quoted you as my thoughts followed your thoughts. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

nameless
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 326
Joined: 8 months ago
Reputation: 67
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: None at this time.

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by nameless » 1 week ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 week ago
I've also met Trumpers who have changed their mind, but he's an outstanding campaigner, which will facilitate changing their minds back.

The Democrats are going to lose a lot of ground if the intellectually dishonest promises of reparations and open borders makes it into the public space.

How representative of the country would you consider your circle to be?
Sure Trump won in 2016 so some people might think he's an outstanding campaigner but without both the Comey letter and Russian interference in the 2016 election he would have lost in 2016. And even with all of that help he still couldn't run away with the election. He won by a very small number of votes in just a handful of states. Even with all that help it was still a close election.

All of that having been said, Trump could win big in 2020 if the democrats don't knock it off. Obama's the one who got the economy on the track it's on but the American people will give Trump some of the credit for it too. Plus there's the issue that the democrats are committing suicide with their extremist shit.

If the democrats don't knock it off then Trump could without any foreign interference or any campaign wrong doing. Trump is rising a little in the polls and some people are saying that it's because of the economy but I don't think that's the only reason he's rising. I think part of the reason is that approval for the democrats is dropping because the American people are hearing all of the extremist talk coming from the democratic party and they don't like what they're hearing so Trump is starting to look better to voters.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1362
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3431
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 week ago

nameless wrote:
1 week ago
Sure Trump won in 2016 so some people might think he's an outstanding campaigner but without both the Comey letter and Russian interference in the 2016 election he would have lost in 2016. And even with all of that help he still couldn't run away with the election. He won by a very small number of votes in just a handful of states. Even with all that help it was still a close election.

All of that having been said, Trump could win big in 2020 if the democrats don't knock it off. Obama's the one who got the economy on the track it's on but the American people will give Trump some of the credit for it too. Plus there's the issue that the democrats are committing suicide with their extremist shit.

If the democrats don't knock it off then Trump could without any foreign interference or any campaign wrong doing. Trump is rising a little in the polls and some people are saying that it's because of the economy but I don't think that's the only reason he's rising. I think part of the reason is that approval for the democrats is dropping because the American people are hearing all of the extremist talk coming from the democratic party and they don't like what they're hearing so Trump is starting to look better to voters.
Sure -- if you remove all of the factors that helped Trump, and you remove none of the factors that helped Clinton (support from Wall Street, neocons, silicon valley), then the result would have likely been different. I accept the truth of that argument, but I reject its relevance.

I do also reject the Democratic strategy. I think that they'd be better off discussing economics, but for various reasons they are choosing to instead talk about reparations, open borders, trans soldiers in the military, etc.

nameless
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 326
Joined: 8 months ago
Reputation: 67
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: None at this time.

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by nameless » 1 week ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 week ago
Sure -- if you remove all of the factors that helped Trump, and you remove none of the factors that helped Clinton (support from Wall Street, neocons, silicon valley), then the result would have likely been different. I accept the truth of that argument, but I reject its relevance.

I do also reject the Democratic strategy. I think that they'd be better off discussing economics, but for various reasons they are choosing to instead talk about reparations, open borders, trans soldiers in the military, etc.
In fact, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1. Clinton getting money from Wall Street and Silicon Valley is comparable to the GOP getting money from the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson because neither activity is illegal, neither is out of the ordinary, and lawfully getting money from businesses and people is common for campaigns.

2. But comparing Clinton getting money from Wall Street and Silicon Valley to Trump getting help from the Russians and the Comey letter versus Clinton getting money from Silicon Valley/Banks is a dishonest comparison. Clinton is totally allowed to get money from Wall Street and Silicon Valley whereas Trump's help from Russia was unlawful and the jury is still out on how much trouble Trump (and his goons) are in for getting that help from Russia. Plus, the Comey letter was against FBI policy and totally inappropriate.

The democrats should be talking about:

(1) Trump's continued efforts to kill Obamacare and the democrats enthusiasm for protecting Obamacare
(2) increasing taxes on the rich to pay down the national debt
(3)Trump's Obstruction Of Justice
(4) Trump's collusion/conspiracy with Russia
(5) Trump separating toddlers from their parents at the USA southern border
(6) Kids and EVEN TODDLERS getting PERMANENTLY lost & separated from their parents in Trump's family separation policy at US Southern border
(7) Trump keeping immigrants (including toddlers) in deplorable conditions at the southern border
(8) Trump's refusal to cooperate with Congress's efforts to conduct constitutionally-mandated oversight of Trump's Russia/Obstruction scandals
(9) Trump's income tax issues including Trump's refusal to let Congress conduct oversight in the matter of his income tax issues
(10) Trump's nepotism
(11) Trump's violations of the Emolument laws.
(12) Trump's campaign violations, especially those involving hookers and strippers.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1362
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3431
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 week ago

nameless wrote:
1 week ago
In fact, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1. Clinton getting money from Wall Street and Silicon Valley is comparable to the GOP getting money from the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson because neither activity is illegal, neither is out of the ordinary, and lawfully getting money from businesses and people is common for campaigns.

2. But comparing Clinton getting money from Wall Street and Silicon Valley to Trump getting help from the Russians and the Comey letter versus Clinton getting money from Silicon Valley/Banks is a dishonest comparison. Clinton is totally allowed to get money from Wall Street and Silicon Valley whereas Trump's help from Russia was unlawful and the jury is still out on how much trouble Trump (and his goons) are in for getting that help from Russia. Plus, the Comey letter was against FBI policy and totally inappropriate.

The democrats should be talking about:

(1) Trump's continued efforts to kill Obamacare and the democrats enthusiasm for protecting Obamacare
(2) increasing taxes on the rich to pay down the national debt
(3)Trump's Obstruction Of Justice
(4) Trump's collusion/conspiracy with Russia
(5) Trump separating toddlers from their parents at the USA southern border
(6) Kids and EVEN TODDLERS getting PERMANENTLY lost & separated from their parents in Trump's family separation policy at US Southern border
(7) Trump keeping immigrants (including toddlers) in deplorable conditions at the southern border
(8) Trump's refusal to cooperate with Congress's efforts to conduct constitutionally-mandated oversight of Trump's Russia/Obstruction scandals
(9) Trump's income tax issues including Trump's refusal to let Congress conduct oversight in the matter of his income tax issues
(10) Trump's nepotism
(11) Trump's violations of the Emolument laws.
(12) Trump's campaign violations, especially those involving hookers and strippers.
There is what is "legal" and there is what is "ethical". In a functional society, they would be closely correlated, but in present-day America the powerful define the law to benefit them. Nobody has gone to jail for any of the wall street financial crisis, the Iraq war, the Libya war, etc. So I'm not particularly persuaded by arguments as to what's legal.

I don't have the energy to respond to all 12+ of your points, but I'll mention the issue of emoluments. I think that everybody or nearly everybody knows that Trump, Kuschner, etc are using the office to make a few billions on the side, that this is corruption, that this is illegal, and that this makes America look bad. I think that even grass-roota Republicans understand this. And I think that it doesn't matter, do you know why?

Because a few billion in corruption is chump change in the current system. Washington DC is the Mecca of global corruption and has been for a very long time. All Americans instinctively know this. If you donate money to the right political party, you get a lot back, and the amount of money that is being regularly wasted is approximately ~1000x larger (probably more) than the corruption that Trump is indulging in. The taxpayer doesn't give a shit because he's been getting robbed a lot worse for decades. It's the bigger picture that matters.

I visit DC on a regular basis. Would you like to know something interesting? It's an expensive city, with the highest median wages in the country. Do you know why that is? It's because a lot of lobbyists live there, and federal lobbyist is a highly paid profession. What does that tell you?

Represenrative Alexandria Occasio-Cortez and Senator Ted Cruz were working on an anti-corruption bill that would prevent congressmen from working as lobbyists for several years after leaving Congress. I expect it to not pass.

Focusing on billions of dollars in one class of corruption while ignoring the broader trillions that are being lost makes the Democrats look delusional and out of touch.

nameless
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 326
Joined: 8 months ago
Reputation: 67
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: None at this time.

Re: 2020 Democratic presidential nomination thread

Post by nameless » 1 week ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 week ago
There is what is "legal" and there is what is "ethical". In a functional society, they would be closely correlated, but in present-day America the powerful define the law to benefit them. Nobody has gone to jail for any of the wall street financial crisis, the Iraq war, the Libya war, etc. So I'm not particularly persuaded by arguments as to what's legal.

I don't have the energy to respond to all 12+ of your points, but I'll mention the issue of emoluments. I think that everybody or nearly everybody knows that Trump, Kuschner, etc are using the office to make a few billions on the side, that this is corruption, that this is illegal, and that this makes America look bad. I think that even grass-roota Republicans understand this. And I think that it doesn't matter, do you know why?

Because a few billion in corruption is chump change in the current system. Washington DC is the Mecca of global corruption and has been for a very long time. All Americans instinctively know this. If you donate money to the right political party, you get a lot back, and the amount of money that is being regularly wasted is approximately ~1000x larger (probably more) than the corruption that Trump is indulging in. The taxpayer doesn't give a shit because he's been getting robbed a lot worse for decades. It's the bigger picture that matters.

I visit DC on a regular basis. Would you like to know something interesting? It's an expensive city, with the highest median wages in the country. Do you know why that is? It's because a lot of lobbyists live there, and federal lobbyist is a highly paid profession. What does that tell you?

Represenrative Alexandria Occasio-Cortez and Senator Ted Cruz were working on an anti-corruption bill that would prevent congressmen from working as lobbyists for several years after leaving Congress. I expect it to not pass.

Focusing on billions of dollars in one class of corruption while ignoring the broader trillions that are being lost makes the Democrats look delusional and out of touch.
Afro, you can say that the line between what constitutes a crime versus what is unethical/immoral shouldn't exist all you want but it does.
It is not the same thing to be accused of doing something immoral and doing something illegal. If you're accused of doing something immoral you can simply flip the person the bird and walk away but if you're accused of breaking the law you could be criminally prosecuted and end up in jail. The reason there's such a big difference in potential outcomes is because when one breaks a law it's considered way more serious than committing somewhat bad behavior. Through their voting, a majority of people made the punishment for committing a crime way bigger than the punishment for committing somewhat bad behavior because committing a crime is substantially worse conduct than committing somewhat bad behavior.

So you pretty much stand alone in trying to lump somewhat bad behavior together with committing crimes. And let's be honest here, your total reason for trying to blur the lines between somewhat bad behavior and crimes is to try to reduce Trump's criminal misconduct (from violations of the emolument laws to Russian conspiracy and Obstruction-of-Justice and Trump's potential tax law violations) down to the same level as Clinton's accepting campaign financial donations, which the GOP also does and IS LEGAL. And in the specific case of the possibility that Trump committed conspiracy with the Russians that could amount to treason. And for you to try to compare accepting legal campaign donations with treason is laughable. That's like trying to compare petty theft to murder 1.

You're trying to whitewash Trump's historically and epic criminal behavior down to the level of somewhat bad behavior. I don't share your belief that it's OK for Trump to break the law, especially the laws related to treason. Hopefully it will all come out via Congressional oversight and then we'll see which side the American people land on. Hopefully, the American people will not give the thumbs-up to Trump's violations of Emoluments laws, conspiracy/treason laws, and Obstruction-of-Justice laws, like you do.

I will give you credit for one thing though - at least you're honest about your willingness to let Trump's unlawful conduct, which might include Treason, slide. I give you a thumbs up for your honesty about this. It's actually commendable, especially when compared to the dishonest denial and rationals of scummy Admin, JLBB, and some others, regarding these same issues

And I take your unwillingness to respond to the other Trump scandals I mentioned to mean that you acknowledge that there's at least some substance to those issues but you care less about those issues than you do about the emoluments violations. I hope you're not an American. America doesn't need citizens who don't care if their president has committed treason.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Admin, JLBB, Majestic-12 [Bot], Xexos and 2 guests