2020 Democratic Nominees - Page 10
Forum Index > Closed |
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value. Rules: - Don't post meaningless one-liners. - Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate. - Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand. - Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm. This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. | ||
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42246 Posts
On May 15 2019 01:34 deadmau wrote: Why yall trippin, we got the most Communist Socialist lineup in history, this is the dream. Keep calm, it's gone be an easy election, the voter base only getting younger. Yall trippin if you think we have a Communist Socialist lineup. | ||
semantics
10040 Posts
On May 15 2019 06:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Yall trippin if you think we have a Communist Socialist lineup. Who do they think is wanting to seize the means of production for society? | ||
Meta
United States6225 Posts
Bernie Warren Yang Gabbard The rest are not inspiring, in my view. | ||
Sermokala
United States13544 Posts
| ||
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On May 06 2019 20:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Gabbard is the best of a real bad bunch. I mean half of them are talking about reparations to descendants of slaves 150+ years ago.If theres ever a system ripe for abuse and chaos it’s that. Dems = Lunatics. You mean like the abuse of slavery? But watered down about 1,000 times less? Clearly taking responsibility for things must sound absolutely "crazy" to you. | ||
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On May 15 2019 07:29 Meta wrote: My top picks are: Bernie Warren Yang Gabbard The rest are not inspiring, in my view. Bernie Warren Yang I agree, those are my preferences as well, in that order, and minus Gabbard. * I wish Yang got more attention, universal basic income is a really interesting idea, and an eventual bridge we will all need to cross. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21793 Posts
Yang is the closest thing Democrats have to a technocrat, and for those recognizing the vacuousness of Democrats political platform, his platform (albeit quite flawed) stands in stark contrast. Warren and Sanders make sense together as Warren is just a staunch believer in "compassionate capitalism" or whatever and thinks we're going to reform it into stopping our extinction and reducing inequality. Sanders isn't "anti-capitalist" but he's not under the belief that capitalism will allow itself to be reformed without massive direct action. Sanders also leans a bit more toward non-reformist reforms but I'd still consider them both reformists. Bernie at least has a more realistic idea of what that's going to take from my perspective. Warren also appeals to the chronic centrist that finds their policy positions more geographically than ideologically. If one prefers a candidate like O'Rourke but wants to "compromise" in a "middle" between him and Sanders, Warren fits that role pretty well. At least that's my take on what we're seeing so far. | ||
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
I am honestly confused by who in the world would want Gabbard. She can't win unless Bernie drops dead as her support is largely derived from the crowd of Bernie supporters. She also has waaaay too much baggage to be considered as a viable candidate. Ignoring her religious background and anti-LGBTQ past, the primary difference most voters are going to see is her unwavering support for Assad which means she's DOA. | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42246 Posts
On May 15 2019 07:39 Sermokala wrote: Explain how either Warren or gabbard are your top picks. Yang and bernie I can get beacuse Ideals but Warren doesn't have a base and gabbard is just a worse Hillary Clinton. Warren is very similar to Bernie, except Warren has arguably better fleshed out ideas that she's taken great lengths to explain in impressive detail. You're right that she's less popular than Bernie, but the original statement wasn't who is most likely to win the nomination (or else how could you possibly agree with Yang, who's polling lower than Warren). | ||
deadmau
960 Posts
On May 15 2019 06:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Yall trippin if you think we have a Communist Socialist lineup. If this lineup ain't good enough for ya, I dunno what else to say, you askin for way too much. This the best bet we gots, why beg for more | ||
Cricketer12
United States13850 Posts
| ||
Sermokala
United States13544 Posts
On May 15 2019 14:52 Cricketer12 wrote: I really don't understand how Yang isn't the most well received nominee He'd make a real easy target for Trump in the general. Probably easier than Hillary. | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will announce her first major bill today, in partnership with Vermont Sen. and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. It’s something Sanders has proposed for many years: a 15 percent interest rate cap on all consumer loans, which would reduce what many Americans pay on their credit cards and effectively eliminate the payday loan industry. There's some more about possibly introducing Postal banking services to help the quarter of the population that is underbanked. This is another example of a "radical far-left proposal" that will "disrupt" private industry and put various Wall St. firms out of business. This is why the GOP and parts of the Dems with strong ties to the financial industry will oppose it as government meddling. But from another perspective this is common sense legislation supported by a vast majority of the population and the opposition to it is strictly from a class of corporate loan sharks that have bought the political establishment. | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
If this is a wave election there are a handful of reforms that could be made immediately in order to further the left political project, such as voting for felons, statehood for PR, DC, automatic registration, ending gerrymandering, voting holidays, stacking the supreme court and so on. The GOP can be decimated just by re-enfranchisement, because they have dug themselves into a far-right corner, campaigning purely on racism and cultural grievances, disconnected from the majority of the population. Chomsky has said the GOP is the most dangerous organization in the world in recent history and I'm inclined to agree. Climate change denial alone amounts to essentially a death cult, meanwhile there is an ongoing, man-made extinction event happening around us and the planet is going to boil to death. The GOP response is to create fortress America, which casts climate refugees as savages trying to breach the walls of the civilized world. It's rhetoric that already leads to mass suffering, but with its appeal to ethno-nationalism is honestly only a few steps removed from certain historical groups I won't need to mention. So yeah, it's important that the Dems win the next election with an ambitious program to completely reverse the descent into fascism and corporate dystopia that is becoming ever more apparent. | ||
Biff The Understudy
France7653 Posts
On May 06 2019 22:00 don_kyuhote wrote: Jeez, so many candidates! I hope the debates will be as entertaining as the 2015~2016 republican debates, but I'm probably in for a disappointment. Considering the garbage choice that came out of those "entertaining" debates, I would much rather them be boring and serious and people to realize it's not entertainment but about the future of the country, arguably of the planet, and the lives of millions and millions of people. | ||
Biff The Understudy
France7653 Posts
On May 15 2019 01:34 deadmau wrote: Why yall trippin, we got the most Communist Socialist lineup in history, this is the dream. Keep calm, it's gone be an easy election, the voter base only getting younger. No one in this lineup is even close of approaching anything like socialism in its marxist sense and talking of communism when you have people like Biden competing just makes you look clueless. On May 15 2019 01:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: The government does it because the other people don't. There are occasional sunshine stories of bosses sharing unexpected profits with all the workers of a company, there are examples of worker-owned enterprises (which I absolutely love!), and there are a lot of bosses that genuinely care about the welfare of their workers. But the former two are extreme outliers, and the latter seems to happen more frequently the smaller the company. (Which makes sense, as having fewer employees means you will logically be more attached to each individual.) The more of a capitalist you are, the more you are in favor of undercutting workers as much as it is possible to undercut them. For skilled workers part of a limited work force, the system works out fairly well, because they are not easily replaced and thus they end up being paid more in line with their actual contribution. For unskilled labor, it's a fucking disaster of a system. And as a skilled worker myself, I will absolutely argue that my daily hours are worth much more to me than my education is; I'm paid about 20% more per hour as a teacher than I was doing manual labor in a warehouse. And while I'm happy about those 20% - and think it's fair that I make more now, doing a more difficult job with more responsibilities, I think that number is pretty much spot on. It's enough of an incentive to make me want to use my skills in a way that benefits society more, but it's not so much more that there's a sea of luxury distancing myself from my former coworkers. I would far, far prefer if CEOs self-policed and operated everywhere based on a rule of 'I can only make 4 times as much as an entry level worker' (meaning they would have to increase entry level salary to increase their own salary, meaning a thriving company would have a thriving work force), or whatever, but they don't. So the government has to do it. I'm not a fan of government redistribution, but it's far better than growing inequality and no redistribution. And I'm not really a fan of government giving money to people period - I'm a fan of government building infrastructure throughout society in a way that gives equal opportunity to succeed regardless of your luck drawing the birth lottery ticket. In a country like Norway, where even the lowest paid workers make $35k per year assuming they work 37.5 hour weeks, you can fund this through collective, not all that progressive taxation. In a country like the US, where people can work full time and still need food stamps and where the top 0.01% make 5% of the total income (not even mentioning wealth), significantly more progressive taxation must be enforced to have any hope of building a more meritocratic society. Because that's the real joke of it all. You have a fundamentally unjust society where part of the population is convinced of its meritocracy, all while lineage greatly determines future success. I mean, lineage greatly determines future success in Norway, too, but firstly, less so than the US, and secondly, failing isn't as big of a disaster. This is a graph indicating social mobility by country. The further left, the less inequality, and the closer to the bottom, the more social mobility (= more meritocratic). While inequality cannot be deemed the sole factor, it's fairly easy to spot the trendline. Maybe it's time to replace the term "American Dream" by "Danish Reality". | ||
Howie_Dewitt
United States1416 Posts
Why shouldn't the current Department of Defense be called the Department of War? It's not like we've been defending anything at home for a long time. Why should we keep private prisons? From what I've seen in my research on the justice system, and my 4 hour interview of a police officer, they don't even care what happens to prisoners once they get in, but the officers don't want them committing crimes. The U.S. has a high rate of recidivism and private prisons' slave-camp-esque systems and non-rehabilitative punishments seem counter-intuitive. The officers' conduct themselves was also nice from anecdotal evidence, but I suspect that I only saw the best of the best considering the broad statistics on many kinds of minorities eating shit at the hands of police. I really hope he makes it to the debates; whether he does or not, I plan to vote for Sanders, Gabbard, or Warren once it comes time to pick someone who could even win the primary. Bernie's age scares me, but his platform is close to what I believe. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21793 Posts
On May 15 2019 17:45 Grumbels wrote: Hopefully there will be a dynamic where the recent wave of class resentment brought to the surface will cause candidates such as Warren and Sanders to propose increasingly radical legislation, with sufficient mobilization to allow them to campaign on it in the general election. Because the nominally far-left policy platform actually has majority support of the population and it's been a long time since there was a non-centrist Dem candidate for the GE. The theory is that this sort of campaign can mobilize many groups of voters that have otherwise given up on the political process, correctly perceiving it as corrupt. And this might actually effect the transformative change that is so necessary for both the USA and the rest of the world (which often follows in its footsteps), hopefully also leading to a reduction in US imperialism and a reversal of climate change denial, with investment in clean energy. If this is a wave election there are a handful of reforms that could be made immediately in order to further the left political project, such as voting for felons, statehood for PR, DC, automatic registration, ending gerrymandering, voting holidays, stacking the supreme court and so on. The GOP can be decimated just by re-enfranchisement, because they have dug themselves into a far-right corner, campaigning purely on racism and cultural grievances, disconnected from the majority of the population. Chomsky has said the GOP is the most dangerous organization in the world in recent history and I'm inclined to agree. Climate change denial alone amounts to essentially a death cult, meanwhile there is an ongoing, man-made extinction event happening around us and the planet is going to boil to death. The GOP response is to create fortress America, which casts climate refugees as savages trying to breach the walls of the civilized world. It's rhetoric that already leads to mass suffering, but with its appeal to ethno-nationalism is honestly only a few steps removed from certain historical groups I won't need to mention. So yeah, it's important that the Dems win the next election with an ambitious program to completely reverse the descent into fascism and corporate dystopia that is becoming ever more apparent. This is a great summary of the situation in my view. Sure would be nice if the primary turned into a head to head with Sanders and Warren introducing increasingly radical (but still majority/plurality supported) proposals. | ||
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
On May 15 2019 12:53 deadmau wrote: If this lineup ain't good enough for ya, I dunno what else to say, you askin for way too much. This the best bet we gots, why beg for more Well technically for the standard in western countries, most of your lineup is still right wing. | ||
| ||