|
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. |
On March 06 2020 00:06 NewSunshine wrote:
The Warren supporters I know personally are far from well-off. They would be generally pretty happy to support Bernie if he wins as well. Anecdotes are fine, but that's all they are.
yeah, makes sense. I am a privileged dude in an area and career to match, so it makes sense I'd only meet privileged supporters.
So after a bit more digging in the warren subreddit I found something I totally agree with.
The gist of it: If Corona virus is killing old people, does it really make sense to rely on 2 78 year old men to survive?
Warren being 70 still puts her in the high risk area for Corona, but it is true that redundancy is maybe a good thing. But she doesn't need to be running to be on tap. If by some crazy tragedy both Biden and Bernie died, Warren could become the nominee without running in all 50 states. I think people would understand lol
|
Maybe we'll get AOC sooner than we thought then 
|
On March 06 2020 00:06 NewSunshine wrote:
The Warren supporters I know personally are far from well-off. They would be generally pretty happy to support Bernie if he wins as well. Anecdotes are fine, but that's all they are.
AOC is 30, gotta be 35 to run.
|
If AOC became Speaker of the House she'd be 3rd in line.
|
She'll have 3 years to gear up for a 2028 run as an eligible US person. I'll be keeping an eye out.
|
On March 05 2020 23:57 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 23:44 Mohdoo wrote:
The Elizabeth Warren subreddit has become a really weird place. Strangely bitter crowd. Way more than Buttigieg and yang. People need to stop seeing every election with a woman as some kinda final battle of feminism.
Fact is Warren and Clinton were both amazingly bad candidates. Now they lost. AOC will be president some day, wait for that rather than trying to push through shitty candidates just because they are a woman. How was Clinton a bad candidate. Clinton was probably the most qualified candidate for president in a long time. She had years of policy experience including foreign policy and was generally viewed favorably outside of the US. Now her run for the presidency was based on the long list of qualifications and not as much any enthusiasm for her candidacy, that was bad. People get bitter because it seems like women have to be beyond perfect to be taken seriously as presidential, only becomes a farce because Trump got elected who is all appearance and no substance.
I would say any candidate who can't make people enthusiastic is bad, and the best candidate is the one who can get the most voters, both in turnout % of supporters and ability to gain the votes of independent voters and low-information voters. I'll refer to the hard parts of a candidate as those that directly determine what would happen were they to win, like policy, experience, ability to whip votes for legislation, and skill. Hard aspects of a candidate should translate into being a better candidate, but the squishy parts of a candidacy matter too. Having a good vibe/making people who are mostly tuned out of politics say "yeah they seem cool," oratory skills, debate skills, your vice presidential pick (honestly I don't think they do that much), and, sadly, people's opinions of you before the election season starts.
I think, barring foreign policy (because I don't want to debate whether her time there did more harm than good and watch people fight over that again), Hillary was a good candidate on the hard parts. But her squishy aspects ranged from okay to the one of the worst people in the country. She had decades of Republican smear already locked and loaded, an email scam that everyone heard about and gave her a slimy kind of feeling to uninformed voters regardless of what actually happened in it. And, to make things worse, Tim Kaine was a poor choice when looking at how to shore up those weaknesses, especially with an air of anti-establishment sentiment on both sides of the aisle. He gave well over a third of the democratic party's primary voters the finger by not being a compromise with the Bernie platform/position, helped to cement Hillary as the establishment candidate instead of deflecting from it, and generated about as much interest and excitement as a single sea slug would to a jet engine passing overhead. By those standards, I'd say she was bad.
|
|
|
Warren out!
Predictions: who will she endorse? Endorsed Clinton last time
|
On March 06 2020 00:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren out!
Predictions: who will she endorse? Endorsed Clinton last time
If last time is any indication, she will wait until there is a clear winner to endorse. Not great to explicitly backstab Bernie, but not endorsing Biden is dangerous for her ability to get a promotion if the DNC gets the win they are hoping for.
|
On March 06 2020 00:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2020 00:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren out!
Predictions: who will she endorse? Endorsed Clinton last time
If last time is any indication, she will wait until there is a clear winner to endorse. Not great to explicitly backstab Bernie, but not endorsing Biden is dangerous for her ability to get a promotion if the DNC gets the win they are hoping for.
She definitely wanted to wait till the debate. So she probably got promises from someone. Kinda big in Washington where if she endorses Bernie he'll blow Biden out.
The longer she waits, the more cynical it looks.
|
Warren apparently in talks with Biden and Bernie to see where she goes. To me, this is further evidence she has been a sham from the beginning. It is not difficult to see whether she aligns more with Biden or Bernie on policy. If she is exploring what benefits each campaign can have for her, rather than simply endorsing the team that aligns most closely with her supposed values, she is not a good person.
|
On March 06 2020 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:
Warren apparently in talks with Biden and Bernie to see where she goes. To me, this is further evidence she has been a sham from the beginning. It is not difficult to see whether she aligns more with Biden or Bernie on policy. If she is exploring what benefits each campaign can have for her, rather than simply endorsing the team that aligns most closely with her supposed values, she is not a good person.
I'm glad I never bought into her. A lot of people I know kept telling me about what a great progressive she is and how she's better than Bernie and I never bought into it. When the campaign trail got tough, she showed her true colors and they were not pretty. I hope she endorses Bernie but the fact she didn't so immediately after dropping out to unify the progressive wing of the party tells me plenty about her and what she really values.
|
Is Bernie going to repeal the USMCA if elected?
|
On March 06 2020 03:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
In Bernie going to repeal the USMCA if elected?
Probably not. Just like Trump, we would get some kinda slimmed down version of basically everything he is advocating for. Which is still great. The place where you start negotiations matters a lot.
Starting from "Eliminate the unethical practice of allowing companies to profit from health insurance"
instead of "Can our poor people be a little less poor from medical stuff?" is a great thing.
|
On March 06 2020 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2020 03:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
In Bernie going to repeal the USMCA if elected? Probably not. Just like Trump, we would get some kinda slimmed down version of basically everything he is advocating for. Which is still great. The place where you start negotiations matters a lot. Starting from "Eliminate the unethical practice of allowing companies to profit from health insurance" instead of "Can our poor people be a little less poor from medical stuff?" is a great thing.
he seems opposed to the USMCA.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-opposes-trumps-usmca-full-statement
"There is no doubt in my mind that we need to fundamentally rewrite our disastrous trade agreements and create and protect good-paying American jobs, to improve the environment and combat climate change, and to stop the destructive race to the bottom.
"Unfortunately, this revised trade agreement with Mexico and Canada does none of those things. It must be re-written
He'd let the USMCA stand after elected? really?
It is interesting he frames the agreement as "Trump's USMCA". It got voted through with 89-9 in favour of it. So it has Democrat and Republican support.
On March 06 2020 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2020 00:06 NewSunshine wrote:
The Warren supporters I know personally are far from well-off. They would be generally pretty happy to support Bernie if he wins as well. Anecdotes are fine, but that's all they are. yeah, makes sense. I am a privileged dude in an area and career to match, so it makes sense I'd only meet privileged supporters.
I'm in a great place as well. Some of it due to luck and some due to hard work.
Why not go out of your way to see other sides or life in your country? Occasionally, I walk from Wellesley//Yonge south east down to Sherbourne//Queen in Toronto. It's basically a 3rd world country. I can purchase no condom sexual intercourse for $20 Canadian. Pick-up trucks pull up offering me illegal indian cigarettes. Occasionally, I volunteer at the local food bank.
Going out of one's way to view various aspects of a nation can be an enriching and interesting experience. It might widen your horizons.
|
Canada8989 Posts
He'd probably want to revisit it and maybe reopen the negotiation, but all in all he has given no indication that he would be interested in abolishing the north american trade zone in general.
It's also hard to do once you are in office, if you actually want to change it profoundly you would have to bully a bunch of people, Trump was way more prone to talk about cancelling Nafta in his speech and in the end the next trade deal is pretty similar.
The fact that it was passed so easily in the senate is a good indication that it wasn't a major shift. It's not like the senate will stop being neolib in the close future anyway so it's not really an option to change it profoundly even if he wanted to.
|
|
|
On March 06 2020 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2020 03:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
In Bernie going to repeal the USMCA if elected? Probably not. Just like Trump, we would get some kinda slimmed down version of basically everything he is advocating for. Which is still great. The place where you start negotiations matters a lot.
Yeah it's really incredibly damaging and toxic the way the Democrats have adopted a rhetoric of pre-emptive negotiating and then use that horrible tactic to attack other democrats as having unrealistic plans.
It's doubly worse because it's politics. When you have something like business asking for a lot is a good idea because it helps you get into the middle, but both sides are motivated to reach a deal so at worst you're missing out on a small edge you could have had (pay a bit more or whatever).
Modern Republicans realized, unfortunately correctly, that if the Democrats ask for something reasonable and they say yes, it's a win and boost for the Democrats. So they went into obstruction mode, say no to everything all the time.
Starting from way left, then negotiating at the time of the deal at least lets both sides share the victory more and makes it more likely they may get things done, not by much, but somewhat.
And if they're going to shoot down all the above scenarios ANYWAYS (likely) then it's ridiculous to not go for the person with the plan that's morally just and inspirational to future politicians/generations.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On March 06 2020 04:16 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Probably and maybe? I did a bit of digging. Show nested quote +"As the only leading presidential candidate to oppose Trump’s NAFTA 2.0, I am pledging today that upon being sworn in as president, I will immediately begin renegotiating this disastrous deal, Seems Bernie pledged to renegotiate the USMCA deal if elected. It also seems like he won't get the support of some Democrats to do so. https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/key-democrats-push-back-sanders’-usmca-renegotiation-ambitionI think Bernie will want to renegotiate the USMCA, but he won't have enough backing him to pull it off.
Ya that was I was saying (in a somewhat confusing way maybe) I'm sure in the bottom of his heart Sanders would love to change the trade deal entirely but that doesn't mean he's gonna waste time and political influence on it if there's no hope of going forward.
The president also can't force the canadian and the mexican government to renegotiate the deal, there's predefined date at which there will new round of negotiation but between those they don't necessarily have to listen to him. The accord has been sign for a minimum of 16 years with a renegotiation review every six years (with the option to extend it for another 16 years at each renegotiation round). They signed the USMCA in 2018 but then the US Congress rejected it and propose some amendment and the new version of the deal was pass just a few months ago, I think Canada has yet to vote on it (but it'll pass), so the next round would be either in 2024 or 2026? I have to admit I can't find if they start the clock at the first signature or at the final adoption in two minutes.
The only thing the president unilaterally is to cancel the deal entirely, he would need congress approval to sign another one and the accord of the two other country if he wanted to have a special round of negotiation. Trump threaten to quit Nafta entirely if it wasn't renegotiated, Sanders could try to do the same I imagine, but so soon after signing another one it would be surprising anyone to go back at it.
Then again I won't pretend I'm an expert on international law, there's some negotiation table and arbitration tribunal that stay open all the time to solve dispute and new situations and maybe you can push for some change along them and find some loophole where you can dodge going to congress with it. (Kind of like the way Trump blocked the nomination of judge at the WTO for a while) But that's way above my knowledge on this kind of thing.
|
On March 06 2020 04:49 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2020 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:On March 06 2020 03:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
In Bernie going to repeal the USMCA if elected? Probably not. Just like Trump, we would get some kinda slimmed down version of basically everything he is advocating for. Which is still great. The place where you start negotiations matters a lot. Yeah it's really incredibly damaging and toxic the way the Democrats have adopted a rhetoric of pre-emptive negotiating and then use that horrible tactic to attack other democrats as having unrealistic plans. It's doubly worse because it's politics. When you have something like business asking for a lot is a good idea because it helps you get into the middle, but both sides are motivated to reach a deal so at worst you're missing out on a small edge you could have had (pay a bit more or whatever). Modern Republicans realized, unfortunately correctly, that if the Democrats ask for something reasonable and they say yes, it's a win and boost for the Democrats. So they went into obstruction mode, say no to everything all the time. Starting from way left, then negotiating at the time of the deal at least lets both sides share the victory more and makes it more likely they may get things done, not by much, but somewhat. And if they're going to shoot down all the above scenarios ANYWAYS (likely) then it's ridiculous to not go for the person with the plan that's morally just and inspirational to future politicians/generations.
It's a part of the neoliberal system that's really damaging and not always easy to put your finger on.
In a social democratic system, the left represents change and offers new ideas, the right then offers the status quo instead. Sometimes those ideas are not popular and so the right gets larger numbers and rejects them, sometimes the opposite happens and the ideas are accepted. I believe I'm paraphrasing Introvert a little bit with this description, but it makes a lot of sense, and is in my opinion a good way to treat new ideas, we don't want to accept everything ever.
In a neoliberal system, it's the left that represents doing nothing or not much, and the right offers older ideas that make things worse for people and that we have to choose to accept or reject as the left. The kind of people that have taken the system hostage, the donor class and the bosses, do not want the system to change, so they ensure that when you have a chance to change something, it's always a proposal for something that has no impact on the economic system (social progress or social regression), or something that is abhorrent, like more tax cuts for the rich so that their hold on society grows stronger. Under that political system, change is not threatening to them anymore, only to us, so we are expected to reject it (and if we don't, that's fine with them).
Of course we could also elect a true leftist again, so that change that is positive for humans can be the position of the left as it ought to be; but that's much harder to do now that we don't really have a party pushing for us to do that anymore. And both parties will fight us as hard as they can when we try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
