![]() |
Quote:
|
Not anyone specific no
kind of, um, still haven't bothered to look at everyone too much |
I mean, I get that. There are literally so many right now.
|
Elizabeth Warren 95%.
5% hesitation based on her position on breaking up big tech. 95% enthusiasm based on basically everything else. |
Quote:
|
Personally, I think that Warren and Sanders have the best platforms and I agree that electing another moderate like Biden (even ignoring other issues with him) wouldn't really end up solving any of the problems currently facing the US. Assuming he could get elected, which is certainly a possibility if he wins the nomination but it's far from a certainty given how divided the left is currently. That being said, I can't see the majority of the left really risking a second Trump term just to avoid Biden, who is most likely to get the nomination since he seems to be developing something of a cult of personality of his own.
|
Just gonna drop this tweet here and one can make their own inferences from it.
|
Warren has been unveiling innovative policies all season. She has good plans for education, housing, childcare, worker representation on boards and more. I would say she is running on more of a liberal domestic platform rather than the hardcore progressive one, but still an interesting and appealing platform nevertheless.
Warren also has a history of working to curtail excesses from the banking and credit industry which leads me to believe that she is sincere about the economic justice policies she has put forward, rather than just parroting populist policies. I just wish she would fight the establishment, particularly on foreign policy. With the possibility of war with Iran becoming a more real and frightening possibility after this week's events, I am hungry for a candidate that can govern well at home but also be a peacemaker abroad. Of the people who qualify for the debates Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders have voting records that hold together better on moving away from military spending and intervention, but my mind is open to several different candidates and I am watching debates to learn more, before officially committing to Warren, Sanders or anyone yet. The gold standard of progressivism I think is Mike Gravel, but he doesn't want to be president and his campaign is a political statement to influence the third debate if he gets in. Again, I am not ready to endorse Warren this early in the primary, but what I ultimately do appreciate about Warren and wanted to come to this thread to give her credit for is that she is really offering a policy-based discussion at least and trying to woo voters with her positions, unlike Biden who is simply piggyback riding on Obama's name. I had not planned to discuss Biden, but his face has triggered me now. Biden's entire campaign is built around himself in relation to other people, i.e Vote for me because of your fear of Trump. He stands for nothing on policy, nothing that is good. Some of the establishment candidates in the race are willing to throw the left a bone out of political strategy at least, but Biden's attitude is just, let them eat cake. He doesn't have the respect to include any of our issues as a focal point of his campaign. I think it would be a pyrrhic victory if Biden won the nomination. Even If I were to ignore the disturbung harassment allegations, which I am not able to, I'd still be voting for all of the conservative policies I don't want enacted and defeat much of the purpose of why I am voting for a democrat anyway. I can't think of one issue that Biden will not get into bed with republicans on, immigration, war, trade, women's reproductive rights, criminal justice, the death penalty. As a person who does not consider herself of the conservative wing of the party I find voting for Biden selling out so many core values of the left so that Trump is gone in name only. Sometimes you have to cut your losses, but a loss is still a loss. If the primary is over and Biden was the only thing left standing between Trump then I'll be more inclined to talk about throwing myself off a cliff to escape being devoured by a scary monster, which is what choosing Biden to evade Trump is. But I am still dead in that scenario, and I would rather be alive than dead. There are dozens of other people in the race, some of them look pretty good, and I'm going to fight to be alive and attempt any route of escape with a good candidate before I resolve to die with a bad one just so I can die in a nicer way than I might otherwise. Destroying myself is the last option. Right now it's Hell no to Uncle Joe. |
Quote:
I feel like the rise of Bernie Sanders had some unfortunate consequences and with that is the "split" of the Democratic Party. There was such a toxic atmosphere in the 2016 election because you had #BernieorBust voters that would rather set the country on fire than accept their losses, and this attitude will always continue to mystify me. Don't get me wrong, when you look at Bernie compared to Hillary, there's a lot of appeal to see there compared to Hillary who seemed massively status quo by comparison. Her favourables were not great (in fact they were pretty bad) so it's easy to see Bernie in a great light. Therefore, the term "establishment" was made into a buzzword to mean the elite donor class of the Democratic Party. In short, it was a shady insult meaning out-of-touch, party-line Democrats like Clinton who don't want to upend the system. That's how it was. But Hillary isn't running, so does the word even mean anything, anymore? Bernie, as we now know, is a millionaire and has been in politics for three or so decades. Does that mean he's establishment, too? What I'm getting at here is that it's so easy to stretch the word "establishment" to pretty much isolate or insult anyone who doesn't agree with your views as a party line "hack" (to use another unhealthy word) or "sellout" when that's not always the case. I suppose Bernie has been attempting to shift the democratic climate (for a lack of a better word to use) so far left that it seems like by comparison anyone who is not specifically Bernie is seen as a centrist when in reality they're pretty liberal, just not far left. I'm not sure what weight the term has in current-day politics, anymore. "Fuck the Democratic Party" isn't an attitude that's so widespread like it used to be, and it can be seen in Bernie's poll numbers where sometimes he's even trailing behind Warren when taking into account name recognition. When you put Bernie in a field of many other candidates who are unknowns just like Bernie was an unknown, it gives the public time to shop around and warm up to whoever candidate puts their best foot forward. That gives them a lot more options than just a guy who screams about class warfare. Don't get me wrong, I like Bernie as an idealistic individual. I think he has the right goals in that the poor are continuing to get poorer while the rich get richer and that's unacceptable. I just don't think waging a war against the Democratic Party and framing the party itself as the Elite Class and therefore the "establishment" is the right way to go about with it, which is why I haven't been so fond of him lately. |
Quote:
When I said the establishment I was literally talking about our political establishment, more specifically I was talking about the prevailing foreign policy of the American government of the last several decades. You could say that Bernie Sanders stood up to the same establishment by voting against the Iraq War when doing so could result in political consequences. In this context it would be the Bush era that I would be referring to as opposed to the 2016 election. My concern was simply if Warren is also candidate who can really push back against the establishment she works within to fight the tide for the position that is right, even if it is unpopular in today's climate such as not sanctioning Venezuela or Iran, decreasing military spending, an even-sided approach to Israel-Palestine or talks with North Korea just as a series of examples. Does this perhaps make more sense? |
I dislike Biden more and more every time I see him. He's better than Trump in many key ways, so, of course, I'd still vote for him in 2020 over Trump (although my vote, being in an unambiguously red state, is completely worthless), but I really don't care for him. He's far too conservative, and the way he was treated women is super creepy. I completely chastised (and continue to) Trump over this. Of course, as far as we know, Trump is worse, but it doesn't matter. We shouldn't have to pick between one man who is a creeper and another man who proudly boasted about sexual assaulting because he knew he was in a position he could get away with it.
We're in a very sad place right now. But this topic isn't about that. I wish someone like Elizabeth Warren could get the nomination and become president. She's so much better. But gosh darn it, we just need Trump out of office no matter what. If the Republican party steals anymore Supreme Court seats it'll be far worse than not having the Democratic candidate I want. |
Honestly, this is why populism on either side is really scary. Biden's platform basically amounts to having no actual policies, not being Trump and riding on Obama's coattails. There isn't anything inherently wrong with being a centrist, but there is with having no real principals or policy of your own. Even if you can ignore that he's a bit of a creep, which oddly enough a lot of Democrat voters can't, the problem with Biden is that he's weak and his campaign is devoid of substance. It's very much the Democrat equivalent of Trump 2016. It's not as aggressive or divisive sure, but it's a flimsy campaign that is succeeding through populism and a cult of personalty. He won't improve anything. He won't be as divisive, but he'll be a wishy-washy President who doesn't stand for anything beyond being President.
He's even said it himself, if he is elected, nothing will fundamentally change. What he was saying at the time, was basically that nobody had to fear him coming for their money (because heaven forbid the rich give up excess wealth they'll never use). But this is a much deeper truth than that. Think about it, he was saying that if he is elected over Trump, it will still be the same America. That's great if the status quo is working for you but for a lot of people it isn't. He's saying that he will do very little to reverse the social and political damage done by Trump. What's worrying is that a lot of people are only hearing the nice words and are totally missing the ramifications of what he's saying. This is why Warren is such a good candidate. Arguably a better candidate than Sanders, even though I prefer his policy. Because she has very strong views that she has been expressing for years and those views are fundamentally the opposite of just about everything to ever leave Trump's mouth. But unlike Bernie, her views are not nearly as far left and therefore aren't nearly as divisive or scary for more centre-left or right-wing voters. Sanders might have the most pleasing policy, but ultimately I think Warren might be a stronger candidate since she has a wider appeal and has a better chance of snagging Republicans/undecided voters who also don't like Trump. |
Can Biden really be called a centrist, though? Even considering the Overton window and American politics, I wouldn’t really consider the guy a centrist by any definition - he’s the most Republican-lite out of the Republican-lite Dems that the public will have to consider, and his previous political stances pretty clearly show that he doesn’t like... fundamentally disagree with a significant amount of what the GOP offers, he just doesn’t care for the Trump cult.
|
Quote:
|
So, I watched the first part of the first debate. Keeping it short, I liked Warren, Gabbard and Castro. Most of the others either didn't stand out to me or annoyed me. In particular I didn't like de Blasio, O'Rourke or Booker. Booker in particular was my least favourite, even if O'Rourke was arguably pandering more. I do want to say that Klobuchar represented herself and her policies very well but personally I prefer the more left candidates. Delaney spoke well but he was irritating with his constant attempts to interject.
|
All I'm going to say that I probably agree with Nate Silver's implication in that this debate probably hasn't changed anyone's minds that weren't already made up to begin with. It was certainly entertaining, though! Especially the spanish-speaking parts!
To be honest though, Castro put on quite the impressive showing. I wonder if his poll numbers would reflect that. |
Quote:
Granted, this comes off of reading a single article very quickly after a quick search. When I look deeper into it what I find might be very different. |
I do want to point out that one should be very careful in regards to either reader polls or focus group polling. Seems like certain polls that cater to a particular demographic can be very misleading.
I'm going to hold off on the "who won" stuff and see if any of the more reputable pollsters come forth with any data. |
That's always a danger to keep in mind with statistics in general really. Especially so with political polls, since people are liable to not always be particularly honest or objective about it.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If I were an American democrat supporter I'd probably vote for Tulsi. I have no clue how good her chances would be against Trump but I respect her firm anti-war stance. She seems pretty moderate and I'm not all that liberal to be honest. My one knock would be that out of everyone she sounded the most like someone who was reading off a script.
|
Concur with Adri. Biden's a republican's democrat.
He is not for student loan forgiveness and taxing those who have the most. Biden actually made it harder for people who were drowning in debt, and is unlikely to have voted for laws that Obama signed like the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act that shielded consumers from predatory lenders. Biden's true purpose on the ticket was to siphon votes from McCain. He did not align with Obama on a series of important issues like criminal justice reform, women's right to choose, the war in Iraq, the environment. There are enough policy-based reasons to reject him even without the disturbing allegations. Let's see if the candidates he's running against can bring that out in the next debate. https://truthout.org/articles/millennials-are-the-most-indebted-generation-they-can-thank-joe-biden/ Speaking of debates, I watched the first debate last night. It was a good debate. I am getting ready for the next one in a few minutes. My thoughts on last night's show are that due in part to the large field of candidates the pacing meandered at times. I will be glad when the field gets cleared out more and things speed up. The questions were also very soft ball and allowed for too many heartwarming stories to be accepted as answers. Seldom did the moderators force candidates to answer questions, and they rarely brought up controversy like Cory Booker voting against Amy Klobuchar's bill to import drugs from Canada cheaper or accusations that Julian Castro did not properly investigate discrimination accusations under HUD. There were still some interesting to watch moments here nonetheless, and I was able to pick up some valuable information. It was helpful for me to hear Elizabeth Warren take an unequivocal stance on Medicare For All. There was some ambiguity as to where she stood on this position and if she was for the same approach as Bernie Sanders. Glad to hear that they do in fact have the very same position. She is all for it and specifically seeks to end private insurance as he does. Anyway I think she hit all the right notes tonight and made herself seem very progressive. When Warren is not point blank asked a question she will not seize an opening, and as her questions were directed largely at the beginning and end she sat on the sidelines in the middle and didn't stand out to ne as much, but she started strong and closed strong. She sometimes seems a little tightly-wired, but hey, that is Warren. She is bringing great values to the debate nonetheless, and is not running away from the bold policies like breaking up big tech companies. She was alrightie, and still in the running for my vote. Who I was pleasantly surprised by was Julian Castro. I had not previously considered him, and was watching for Warren, Gabbard and Inslee but I got to hand it to Castro for stealing the show in the middle. He brought a youthful vigor and was very fiery, while still looking presidential. He didn't run away from any questions nor was he afraid to call out his opponents on their differences. He was very on point. I think he was great on speaking about women's issues and lgbt rights. I initially had some concerns about how he did on housing as mayor, but I am willing to give him another look now that I know more about him. Where Castro just shined above the rest was on the immigration topic. I was impressed by his willingness to talk about specific laws like repealing Section 1325-- that needs to go to bring us a more humane immigration system, let it be a civil offense. I was able to fully appreciate the contrast between Castro on this and O'Rourke. He just stomped O'Rourke. The only thing that gives me some pause with Castro was when he said he wanted a marshall plan for Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. I am all for giving asylum to those who seek it. I am not opposed to sending economic relief per say even, but what it sounds like he could be for is nation-building abroad, and I don't want to actually run another country's government. I am not Daenerys Targaryen. That may not be what he meant, but I am just curious for him to speak more about this. For now though I think he did a great job performing on the stage, and I think he was the winner of the debate personally. The media says it is Warren. I like Warren more overall but I think it was Castro actually who made the best showing. O'Rourke was terrible. He looked frightened, scattered and was talking for a long time without saying anything. I would be alright if he was not for some of these things, i.e being against the Eisenhower year tax rates is not a deal breaker for me, you can say no. But he would just repeatedly not give answers in order to play both sides, and it wasn't subtle, after awhile nobody wants to hear any more rambling. I learned the least about his policies out of everyone in the debate, and do not care to know any more. I have heard enough. Klobuchar by contrast I think is dry, but she looks competent at least unlike O'Rourke. I am not with her on the incrementalist policies, but I think she handled herself ok in the debate in terms or performance, she was assertive and pointed out that she and all of the women on the stage had similar backgrounds fighting for women's reproductive rights. Booker does get a little platitude-driven, and can try too hard to be homey, but he gave some policy still, he talked about abolishing ICE and legislation he currently has in the senate on criminal justice reform. Where he lost me policy-wise was when he expressed reluctance to rejoin the Iran Nuclear Deal, and was talking about renegotiating it. That is too much of a politician's answer that could mean you would kill the deal like Trump is renegotiating it. This concerns me in conjunction with knowing that Booker voted for Trump's giant military budget, though it was not brought in this debate. Just looking at his performance objectively I think he did good in that he was articulate and aggressive, he was not afraid to elbow his way in when a question was for someone else, and use it as opprtunity to share his views, like saying not enough, he would go even further on civil rights after Gabbard spoke, and laid it out. He's doing what he needs to do to try to come out near the top. Delaney. I think was possibly the worst in the debate. He was not for almost any progressive policies. It isn't just that he is searching for the middle ground or bipartisan support. He just didn't have enough of his own ideas. I do not know why he is running. He looked weak, and when he was asked specifically for his views on impeachment of Trump, he just said he didn't know and he was sure Nancy Pelosi did, and he would trust her. He looked unqualified. Tulsi I think started off average but got very good as the night went on. She looked calm and beautiful. She was given the least questions, and thus has to learn to push her way into the conversation when she is being ignored like the fellas in the room do. It was an awkward first attempt because she used the question about women's income and instead made a pitch for her campaign on ending the wars. I love her foreign policy but she missed the opportunity to broaden her demographics as this is yet another area where she is good on. She is a co-sponsor of the paycheck fairness act. However, she found her footing when Ryan started saber rattling. I think real passion spontaneously came to the surface with Gabbard, she spoke out of turn and just took him down brutally the way Castro took down O'Rourke. She came across as someone strong who knew what she was talking about, and for him it was the opposite. I think she gave a good closing statement. I would say she gave a solid performance, not the winner, but came out showing potential I think. On Ryan I think whatever platitudes he had about the working man got overshadowed by his foreign policy mistakes. He not only sounded like the most hawkish person there, but also seemed not knowledgeable, a dangerous combination. One of my least favorites. De Blasio I responded to similarly to Castro. I had my reservations due to all of the problems with election integrity in the New York 2016 primary, and hearing him now talk about Russia as the biggest geopolitical threat makes him not seem credible to be as the person to fix our election system. But yes, he did a great job on the debate stage in all fairness. I have to be honest. He was really a forceful presence that shook up the stage, had a commanding voice. He talked very progressively on every domestic policy from criminal justice to a medicare for all package that ends the private insurance industry. He was good at making it passionate without feeling like he was veering away from the substantive policy into anecdotes, while also making the case for being able to achieve his goals. He talked about what he had realized already in his city like the fight for 15. Jay Inslee. I was always interested to know more about him because he is the climate change candidate in the race and the only person to get a perfect score from greenpeace, and was not taking corporate pac money. I'd vote for him. He looked dedicated and spoke well. Though climate change is the most central part of his campaign it was nice to hear where he falls on more issues like the way he was ready to accept the refugees and was not intimidated by Trump. He needed to do more of that though, as he isn't the only candidate with a good environmental record, so my advice would be to have more of a diversity of issues. But I kinda like him even if he wasn't the winner. It was a fair performance. Like de Blasio he talked about what he had accomplished, if not to the same extent as de Blasio. It way ay alright. Anyway, the next debate is starting shortly and I can't wait. I better sign off and get to watching. I don't want to miss a word. |
We're all team Marianne Williamson, yeah?
|
Watching creepy Joe get btfo'd repeatedly was very satisfying. Yang completely shit the bed. I've never seen someone roll over and accept defeat so quickly. Not that I had high hopes for him in the first place but he had the power of memes on his side. Safe to say that Kamala Harris won that debate. Still pulling for Tulsi out of all of them so far.
|
Kamala Harris - I think a lot of people would agree that she came out the strongest in this night's debate. Unfortunately I was having connection issues watching the stream the moment she roasted Biden, but honestly? I'm glad it finally happened. I don't consider myself a Harris supporter by any means but I welcome any chance to attack Biden. In short, she made Biden look weak and certainly out-of-touch and unappealing. Whether one likes Harris or not, she positioned herself as a candidate not to be messed with because she will and can drag.
The question being: will any candidate have the gall to drag Harris on her history as a prosecutor for denying trans-inmates surgery? That's essentially the biggest target on her back so far (and she's far too prison-friendly). Harris is certainly not without weakness despite how she comes across, so I'm wondering if there will be a moment where someone will call her out on that. Sanders - I think he did okay. I don't think Sanders came off strong, but I don't think he came off weak, either. I think Sanders could've certainly done better; oftentimes he went off on tangents instead of directly answering the question given to him in particular. I think his closing argument however, was certainly pretty strong and gave voters a more or less convincing argument to vote for him. Essentially, he did about average when he could've had the spotlight shine on him, bit I wonder if that's because this field is too crowded and he's saving his much more memorable talking points for when the candidate field thins out. Biden - Did terribly. And it was deserved in pretty much every way. I'm sure most people thought Biden was a risky candidate from the get-go, but this debate really showed it. There's just too much ammunition to hit Biden with that I'm not confident in the slightest that he'll last against Trump should he be picked for the nomination. Buttigieg - He did fine. Unless I've missed something, he avoided getting into any scuffles or throwing any potshots entirely, which honestly might've been the best judgment call since he's still trying to build up his name recognition out there. Unfortunately for Pete, playing it constantly safe makes him seem rather boring and milquetoast as a result. He's definitely good at delivering articulate responses to questions given to him so it's obvious he's a polished interviewee, but at some point he's going to have to tussle with some of the bigger names out there, and I'm wondering how he'll respond. Williamson - I had no idea who she was before today, but it's safe to say that she was the meme for the night for sure! I stan someone who embraces love to defeat Trump. Andrew Yang - Can someone remind me what is so special about Yang? He didn't stand out in this debate at all, nor offered anything new or interesting. I understand that he wants to give everyone essentially free money which is a dream come true, but I was instantly on the doubt train once he was pressed more on how to accomplish that. In short, I don't think he's going very far if at all. Maybe I'm just not generally understanding his appeal? Everyone else I pretty much forgot about as soon as the debate was over. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:34 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.