2020 Democratic Field

[Angelsjunky]

38 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I don't think he was saying that. Just that Bernie and Warren are clearly "far left". 

In American politics, this is true. From a world standpoint, that chart is probably closer to being accurate.

I get what he's saying, but it is divorced from American history before Reagan. A lot of cons look at Reagan as the golden era, as a kind of default upon which all notions of left and right are based. However, Reagan pushed economic policy far to the right, and Clinton, the Bushes, and Obama didn't really push it back that far left. Similarly with foreign policy: neither Clinton or Obama, so called "liberals," were really any less hawkish than Reagan was.

Warren and Bernie are only "far left" relative to the rightward swing of the last few decades, and Warren is really only "left." They aren't far left of FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, and LBJ.

The point being, "left and right" are relative to your default position. 

[floplag]

12 hours ago, Blarg said:

It disagrees with American politics and what is considered middle of the road or authoritarian whether left leaning or right. These are indoctrination charts to make people believe they are wrong about their perceptions based on their social/political leanings. Essentially is skewed to make it seem the policies put forth are not far left. 

Out of curiosity which current Dem campaign policies would you consider not far left?

I would personally consider many of the top ones as extremely far left, such as abolishing the 2A and open borders.  Supporting those 2 things alone which virtually all of them do pushes someone way further left on that chart that you seem to think to many of us.

Others, like health care and climate change much less so obviously but even then they take them too far.  The Green new deal for example isnt just addressing climate change its a complete paradigm shift that's not realistic.  I 100% support LGBT rights and protections, but not forcing everyone else to use their preferred pronouns.
 
This is the real issue i have with the Dems today, even their good ideas are being taken too far making them hard to support. 

[floplag]

11 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Conservatives who think American politics have shifted far to the left seem to have a selectively short window.

LOL at "indoctrination charts."

Do they?  How else would you describe going from illegal immigration is a problem (which even Obama admitted) to championing open borders in one administration?  Thats a pretty short window. 

[UndertheHalo]

Lol. 

[Angelsjunky]

3 hours ago, floplag said:

Do they?  How else would you describe going from illegal immigration is a problem (which even Obama admitted) to championing open borders in one administration?  Thats a pretty short window. 

Completely open borders won't happen and is just Dems pandering to each other and the base. It was foolish when they all said they'd offer free health care to illegals, but no one wanted to be the bad guy and say "not me." Won't happen. But Yang is right: it isn't immigration that is taking jobs, it is automation.

Republicans are really good at the sneak debate tactic of creating a false argument: "Look, they're going to take our guns!" No, just more stringent restrictions and background checks - if you're not a wacko and don't need a bazooka, you're probably fine.

As for the 2A you mentioned in a previous post, which candidates actually suggest abolishing it? I don't even think Beto. That's just more "they're coming for our guns!" hyperbole.

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Angelsjunky

[floplag]

Just now, Angelsjunky said:

Completely open borders won't happen and is just Dems pandering to each other and the base. But Yang is right: it isn't immigration that is taking jobs, it is automation.

As for the 2A you mentioned in a previous post, which candidates actually suggest abolishing it? I don't even think Beto. That's just more "they're coming for our guns!" hyperbole.

 

I agree on the Yang comment but you are dismissing the rest far too easily.  If you abolish ICE, allows them access to literally everything, what else do you call it?  A rose is a rose by any other name.  Newsome actually just signed a bill allowing illegals to serve on government boards and commissions.. effectively governing citizens.  Honestly what would you call this is not open borders?
Its not hyperbole when the conversation has gone from common sense gun laws, to automatic weapons, to assault rifles, to assault style weapons and now to basically anything semi-automatic especially when none of them appear to be able to even define what any of those actually mean.    

[Angelsjunky]

Its hyperbole when you use phrases like "abolish the second amendment." 

I would also separate California politics from national politics. People in CA often seem to have difficulty doing that.

Anyhow, I think some of that is just the current vogue of Democratic politics: who can be the most woke, more embracing of POCs than anyone else? Some of that will die down.

The fact is, every nominee talks a big game when trying to get elected by pandering to their constituates. How they actually govern is a different manner.

[Make Angels Great Again]

Any candidate that is in favor of reparations (which is the majority of the Democratic candidates) cannot be listed as anything less than authoritarian maniacs.

 

"i'm in favor of taking money from Tom and giving it to Tyrone because of what Tom's ancestors did 300 years ago, but i'm closer to libertarian than authoritarian, also i'm right wing."

 

Get the F*ck out of here.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Immigrants aren't what most citizens have an issue with it's illegal immigrants especially when all the candidates on stage raise their hand in support of free healthcare for those individuals.  We've got citizens who can't afford healthcare, food or a roof over their head and yet somehow we have elected officials who seem to prioritize others first.  

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

Its hyperbole when you use phrases like "abolish the second amendment." 

I would also separate California politics from national politics. People in CA often seem to have difficulty doing that.

Anyhow, I think some of that is just the current vogue of Democratic politics: who can be the most woke, more embracing of POCs than anyone else? Some of that will die down.

The fact is, every nominee talks a big game when trying to get elected by pandering to their constituates. How they actually govern is a different manner.

Interesting comment on separating CA from national when the Dems also want to remove the electoral college and take much larger control... something i also vehemently oppose.

It is disingenuous though to say its not abolishing the second amendment when its making sushi out of it.  No, guns wont be illegal, but infringed to the bejesus belt before we  even get to red flag laws, one more then i oppose greatly. 

Whether or not its en vogue with the group of candidate really isnt the issue since they are basically driven by the DNC anyway.  You are correct about the PoC thing but do you really see it dying down when identity is basically their platform at this point?  Not sure it will as fast as you think though i hope im very wrong on that. 

[floplag]

44 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

Immigrants aren't what most citizens have an issue with it's illegal immigrants especially when all the candidates on stage raise their hand in support of free healthcare for those individuals.  We've got citizens who can't afford healthcare, food or a roof over their head and yet somehow we have elected officials who seem to prioritize others first.  

Thank you for that since it seems most dont know the difference anymore or are intentionally merging it to blur the line.
I am 100% pro immigration, and 100% anti illegal.

[tdawg87]

Anybody else get Tom Steyer ads before every YouTube video? This dude needs to take his money and go F*ck himself. 

[Make Angels Great Again]

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

Anybody else get Tom Steyer ads before every YouTube video? This dude needs to take his money and go F*ck himself. 

 

Get the uBlock Origin chrome extension. No ads ever.

[UndertheHalo]

 

[Jason]

Haha! She even called them out during the debate tonight 

[gotbeer]

So did anyone hit a homer tonight?   Who struck out, and who of the 12 didn't see any playing time?  I tried to look at the box score after the game, but depending on who kept score, said everyone pitched a no hitter, hit for the cycle, and hit a walk off grand slam dedicated to some sick kid.  

[Angelsjunky]

One analyst said that none of the field separated themselves from the pack and none of the big three damaged their chances. In other words, no breakthroughs or collapses. I think that's basically true, but there are nuances.

Bernie had a good night in that he looked healthy, made people laugh, and had some good moments. I'd say he had the best night.

Biden looked bumbling and old. He's clearly falling.

Everyone was going after Liz. She had a really bad moment with Medicare for all, and was shifty about it. But overall she held her own and didn't damage her chances.

Yang is now being taken more seriously and I think had the best night of the also-rans.

I felt like Buttigieg tried to make a splash but ended up belly-flopping. I ended the night feeling like he's very much a war establishment candidate.

Tulsi tried to go after Warren, but never gained traction. It kind of seemed like CNN was protecting Warren, as they cut Tulsi off a couple times when she started to go at Liz. She had a so-so night at best. I have a suspicion that she might secretly be Bernie's attack dog and end up in his cabinet, if he's elected.

The rest...no one stood out. Castro, Beta, Buttigieg, Booker are vying for VP gigs, I think. Klobuchar is kind of the establishment fall-back; if everyone else falls, she could remain as America's beige choice. Kamala remains the corpse that Tulsi left in her wake. I'm not sure what Steyer was doing there, but he was surprisingly inoffensive, even reasonable.

My sense is that it is a two horse race, Bernie and Warren. Biden is fading. Yang and Buttigieg are distant dark horses.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Angelsjunky

[Jason]

Booker looked high AF and Beto doesn’t care too much for the Bill of Rights 

[Jason]

I think she is electable but the DNC will continue to ignore her 

[Jason]

“Shut up Tulsi! Warren is our girl so don’t go trying to question her”. I remember when those at debates actually debated as opposed to spewing talking points 

[Jason]

 

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

She sounds like one of if not the only candidate left with a D next to their name I'd vote for.  One of the reasons Trump got elected was because voters wanted something else and unfortunately he was the result.  We would have been much better off if that outsider or person who hadn't been around as long actually had some character and something they believe in which appears to be the case with Tulsi.

[floplag]

I would right now strongly considering voting for some combination of Yang and Gabbard.  That is literally the only combination the Dems could give me that i would even entertain.
They are the only ones that have bucked the media, their own party, and made open concessions to try to bridge the gaps instead of further dividing us. 
It wont happen, its clear the DNC already has a plan in mind but its a bad one, and a loser. 
There is a path to the white house for them that doesnt involve changing the rules, but they seem more interested in that than any effort to reach out to anyone not part of the base. 

[Taylor]

9 hours ago, gotbeer said:

So did anyone hit a homer tonight?   Who struck out, and who of the 12 didn't see any playing time?  I tried to look at the box score after the game, but depending on who kept score, said everyone pitched a no hitter, hit for the cycle, and hit a walk off grand slam dedicated to some sick kid.  

Even though he wasn't there, Trout still had two walks, one intentional.

[Jason]