Jump to content
tygersongbird

2020 U.S. Presidential Race

Recommended Posts

Zagadka

"Socialist" is a very loaded term in America. "Socialist" is very different from "social democrat", which is very common in Europe (and would be in America if it didn't contain the word "social")

 

Hm, some of these questions need more levels of "absolutely yes" or "absolutely no". Also, they need to define terms more. "Safe spaces" can mean different things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AspieAlly613
1 minute ago, Zagadka said:

Hm, some of these questions need more levels of "absolutely yes" or "absolutely no".

Yeah, they're not the most transparent with that.  They have a "view more options" box that lets you see the finer options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zagadka

Yea, and a lot of important questions are hidden under "More options".

 

94% Socialist

91% Democratic

91% Green

89% Peace and Freedom

 

Which is fine. I would have expected P&F to be over Democratic, but whatever. Libertarian is 34%, Republican 11% and Constitution 10%, but they can all piss off.

 

Bernie, Tulsi, Gillibrand, Harris, Buttigieg... jesus, half the field are over 90%. 7 are at 93 or 94%. And I wouldn't (want to) vote for most of them. Thank god Biden is only at 80%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daveb
36 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

radiation

I don't think you understand radiation and/or cell phone networks. People aren't getting sick form that stuff. But I don't expect to convince you of that, so I won't engage in it any further.

 

On a different note, I tried the test, but I think I missed something because I didn't see any matches to candidates, and I don't feel like going through it all again. Anyway, I'm still keeping an open mind on the race. I see several candidates I would support. I agree with some people who think some of the excess of candidates would better serve the country by running for other offices, such as US Senate. If the Republicans retain control of the Senate I wouldn't be surprised if we see four years of obstructionism against a Democratic president, after all, they were doing it with the previous Democratic president.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
1 hour ago, daveb said:

I don't think you understand radiation and/or cell phone networks.

 

I did not say that I do, so your statement is irrelevant.

 

 

1 hour ago, daveb said:

People aren't getting sick form that stuff. 

 

There is evidence to the contrary.

 

Recently I saw a news report saying that a couple was struggling with infertility. A doctor told the man to stop carrying a phone in his pants pockets. Not long after that they conceived a child.

 

It is anecdotal evidence, but the fact that we have a culture of making ourselves sick and then asking questions later remains. Even after all of the documented illnesses and premature deaths that tobacco, coal, and other toxins have caused we are still debating over them like there is still doubt about their danger to the health of individuals and the public.

 

Nuclear power poses health risks, but we will probably quickly expand it and worry about the health of individuals and the public later.

 

It is easy to attack anti-vaxxers. They are a powerless group going against the grain. Politicians are happy to exploit all of that. The latter is more of the same.

 

What would not be more of the same would be a politician going against the grain and resisting powerful interests and overwhelming consumer demand to confront the root causes of problems.

 

 

1 hour ago, daveb said:

But I don't expect to convince you of that, so I won't engage in it any further.

 

It is irrelevant to my point anyway.

 

Show me a politician who truly represents change. We have become so used to politics as usual that we convince ourselves that minor trivialities, such as never having held office before (Trump in 2016) represent change. If someone actually had the courage to represent true change he/she would stand out so much that it would take less than a minute to convince people that they are looking at something far from "more of the same".

 

You may have to go back to Martin Luther King, Jr. to find a leader in the U.S. who represented true change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pumpkin Spice Eggnog Latte

Things I took from this debate

 

1. Liz Lemon, how the fuck did you get enough support to be on that podium.  I mean I loved your show but seriously?

2. Kamala Harris is one to keep an eye on.  The moment she shut up the rest of the candidates she made it clear she is a force to be reckoned with.  Whether I want her to win is irrelevant, but she is a bold person who is simultaneously looking at the other candidates and going "hey you have a good point" and shooting down Biden.  I want to see her debate Dictator Tiny Hands.

3. Pete Butegiegg...I want him on the ticket somewhere.  He's pretty cool

4. Biden might as well be a Republican.  Actually, PLEASE become a Republican.  This isn't meant to be shady, this is an actual plea to take the Senate away from Mitch McConnell and bring the conservatives into a less crazy branch than they already are.  They need an old school liberal to do that and I think Biden can do better work as a Republican for both parties and the US than he ever could do right now as a Democrat.

5.I still cannot talk about Beto O'Rourke without randomly talking in Spanish.  Mi español esta mejorando pero nadie entiende lo que estoy diciendo.  Aaay!

6. We get it Biden, you worked for Obama.

7. Okay seriously, Liz Lemon is a disaster.  Jack, you did this a prank didn't you?

8. Did Biden mention he worked for Obama?  Because he did.

9. Bernie I love you but wow you drone on a lot.

10. Kamala Harris is my spirit animal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tygersongbird
4 minutes ago, Kisa needs a coffee said:

Things I took from this debate

 

1. Liz Lemon, how the fuck did you get enough support to be on that podium.  I mean I loved your show but seriously?

2. Kamala Harris is one to keep an eye on.  The moment she shut up the rest of the candidates she made it clear she is a force to be reckoned with.  Whether I want her to win is irrelevant, but she is a bold person who is simultaneously looking at the other candidates and going "hey you have a good point" and shooting down Biden.  I want to see her debate Dictator Tiny Hands.

3. Pete Butegiegg...I want him on the ticket somewhere.  He's pretty cool

4. Biden might as well be a Republican.  Actually, PLEASE become a Republican.  This isn't meant to be shady, this is an actual plea to take the Senate away from Mitch McConnell and bring the conservatives into a less crazy branch than they already are.  They need an old school liberal to do that and I think Biden can do better work as a Republican for both parties and the US than he ever could do right now as a Democrat.

5.I still cannot talk about Beto O'Rourke without randomly talking in Spanish.  Mi español esta mejorando pero nadie entiende lo que estoy diciendo.  Aaay!

6. We get it Biden, you worked for Obama.

7. Okay seriously, Liz Lemon is a disaster.  Jack, you did this a prank didn't you?

8. Did Biden mention he worked for Obama?  Because he did.

9. Bernie I love you but wow you drone on a lot.

10. Kamala Harris is my spirit animal.

Who is Liz Lemon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pumpkin Spice Eggnog Latte

A character from 30 Rock played by Tina Fey.

 

This person

 

anigif_enhanced-29681-1431633080-16.gif?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tygersongbird

 

3 minutes ago, Kisa needs a coffee said:

A character from 30 Rock played by Tina Fey.

 

This person

 

anigif_enhanced-29681-1431633080-16.gif?

 

Yes, but which candidate is Liz? Marianne? Gillibrand? I need more clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pumpkin Spice Eggnog Latte

Marianne.  Gillibrand was okay.  She was kind of forgettable though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
3 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

They all offer "more of the same",

 

I know very little about most of the candidates, so I should not have said that.

 

A more accurate statement would be: everything I have seen in the candidates' presentations of themselves in the media is "more of the same".

 

But maybe a look at a candidate who has gotten almost no media coverage, or a close look at the website of one of the frontrunners would reveal signs of true change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
On 6/26/2019 at 11:15 PM, Zagadka said:

worry about Biden leading because he is a disaster.

 

He's not.

 

We chose a draft-dodging, womanizing, marijuana-smoking (but not inhaling) liar over WWII combat veterans in 1992 and 1996.

 

Bush over Kerry in 2004 was the same. One went AWOL on his military duties, the other possibly got exposed to Agent Orange, among other sacrifices. We chose the former.

 

The bar has been set pretty low for "a disaster". But we elect whoever clears that bar.

 

Joe Biden is far from "a disaster". Show me a past like Bill Clinton's or George W. Bush's and then we can call Joe Biden "a disaster".

 

He is more like George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, and John Kerry: not much charisma; not much appeal to extremists. Plus some gaffes.

 

His opponents are too extreme to appeal to the average voter.

 

Swing states like Florida and Wisconsin are probably not going to be won with extremism.

 

Obama had to withstand worse, such as Jeremiah Wright. Nobody called Obama "a disaster".

 

Maybe if you are looking at it from the perspective of a far right (Rush Limbaugh said after the latest gaffe that Biden is "finished") or far left extremist Joe Biden is "a disaster". But if recent history is any indication, it takes an extreme "disaster" to lose support.

 

If you are looking for "a disaster" on the current political landscape, try Roy Moore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zagadka

I don't see what Bill Clinton or W Bush have to do with it. Biden is the closest thing to a Republican running, and he has the best chance of losing to Trump because he is exactly more of what Hillary lost for.

 

Running on "I'm not Trump" and "Obama is my bestie" isn't going to work.

 

Even if he did run and win, his policy is crap. Better than Trump, yes, but not what anyone deserves. He is regression defined.

 

It isn't that I don't expect Biden to win the nomination. He has the clear lead just because no one knows anything but his name sounds familiar. It is just that I don't want him to.

 

And yes, I did stop supporting Obama in the 2012 season. He wasn't a disaster, but far overrated (like Bill Clinton was). I mean, compared to the past 50 years, Obama is probably at the top, but that isn't saying much.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoseGoesToYale

I was very impressed with Buttigieg. He was concise, no-nonsense, and participated in the "I can talk louder and longer over you nya-nya!" games the least. To me he made the most sense out of all the candidates. And he is the only candidate that addressed (in a sideways manner because y'know) the college-for-all fallacy. He is absolutely correct that non-college goers need to be able to make an honest decent living as much as college goers, and promoting this idea could go a long way to diversifying the skills in the workforce, re-strengthening college degrees, and actually getting young people hired.

 

Bernie kept deflecting questions put to him by going back to his agenda. It's starting to sound broken record by now, not to mention I don't like any politician that deflects. Ever. If you can't answer the question directly, that's fishier than puréed roe.

 

Biden... I have nothing to say. He said it all. (And then Harris roasted him for it!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
2 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

I did not say that I do, so your statement is irrelevant.

 

 

 

There is evidence to the contrary.

 

Recently I saw a news report saying that a couple was struggling with infertility. A doctor told the man to stop carrying a phone in his pants pockets. Not long after that they conceived a child.

 

It is anecdotal evidence,

Anecdotes aren't evidence.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tygersongbird

My takeways of the 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate Tonight. Let me preface this with this statement: I am not a big believer in debates on any premise. Townhalls are the things I look to, because they engage the people, and you have to come across constituents to answer their concerns. Debates are okay, but I don't think they give you a window into knowing them as a person or all the policies they stand for. I just prefer the townhall section. I feel you know the person closer in those minutes than a time slot of 60 seconds to do that.

 

1. Marianne WIlliamson-- This is not a knock or slight to her, but I don't think she needs to be there. I actually like her reparations plan, and I like the fact she wants to change healthcare to a wellness plan, I do. However, she is not really as great to be up there. She doesn't have the platform or the ability to command the stage to make this happen. We need someone besides her. I would like her to work on things outside the presidency, really. If she could fix things in areas like in a government liason, that would be better. Perhaps secretary of wellness should be a thing?

 

Also, winning with love without plans overall is not enough for me. I am a policy person, not just a "love" person. Bring the fight with policies. Create a policy platform, if you're going to be in office. I care for policy more than that. I am glad that you spoke up on the fact that the Trump administration is guilty of child abuse, though. I am with you on that.

 

2. John Hickenlooper (Fmr Gov--CO)-- I'm a socialist. I will stand with that. I am social democrat, to the fullest. So, I already come biased against Hickenlooper, but I think I can be objective on this. He wasn't given much time. He was given a little time. He did mention the climate change initiative pretty well, but I felt he lied about the whole marijuana thing. That really wasn't so much him doing that, as much as pressure from constiuents made it so. Popularity made it so. He did some things while governor, but not all of that. I appreciate the fact that he's a geologist who values undertaking the climate crisis full speed, but let's not act like because you owned a business you know everything. A man in office ran on that premise as well! Look what happened with that. You may be a real business person with your brewery, but let's not do the whole past thing. I'm not afraid of being called a Democratic Socialist.

 

I appreciate the moratorium on the death penalty, but I don't think that we can go far enough in progress until the death penalty is just done. It's not effective deterrence, nor is it effective in helping disenfranchised people get back to life. It's just Draconian. He didn't speak on that. His medicare for all plan is not working with me. I appreciate the whole "Independent Counsel" plan to Pete Buttigieg, but it's not going to work with me until he acknowledges the full way to do medicare for all.

 

3. Andrew Yang--  I like him, personally. However, this night was slanted against him from the start. He didn't even get like five questions. He answers very well. He answers greatly for a freedom dividend. No one really came after that. No one came after his China technology debate. He's smart, like genius. However, being smart isn't going to work for him really. It sucks, honestly. I like his ideas. This debate gave him no shot to really get in. There's no controversy to him. Personally, could he be president? Someday. I just would like him to be a Secretary of the Treasury type of person. He'd run circles around Mnuchin

 

4. Pete Buttigieg (Mayor--South Bend, IN)-- He is a very amazing speaker. His call to the Religious RIght was impeccable, simply remarkable. If you can't wake up from the Trumpism as an Evangelical Christian in my regard, there's no way I'll believe they'll ever do it. He really connected the Christian message to accepting the foreigner. Pete really made that a huge tenet of the night.

 

However, he has to answer better for the police shooting and the police problems in Indiana. He did fail. Apologies are nice and all, but what are the overall plans to make this go better? The police chief is still there. Why is he there? What about the family and the other African-American families that feel you're slow dragging your feet on this? These are things that could be done under his term stay. We have to address the lack of diverse officers, along with the lack of accountability departments in his justice system to make this happen. I like Pete, but there has to be a plan for this. I hate to single him out as this is a problem in my home city, too. However, he's running for prez. We need a plan maker, along with a person who helps integrate communities for employment purposes to get over the poverty line. Can Buttigieg do that?

 

5. Joe Biden (Fmr VP) -- He was so prideful of his past. I did this for 45 years, type of comments. He really states that he will be the one who will take down Trump. I don't know if that comes with any plans. He wants to be bipartisan. How did that work with McConnell? Yeah, not buying it. That tax plan that was passed was horrible. So, I'm not for bipartisanship with the likes of Mitch McConnell. Play patty cake somewhere else. He also only focused on giving aid to Central America, rather than giving a way to citizenship for DACA. 

 

6. Bernie Sanders (Sen--VT)-- I don't think he came across well. He did speak universally on the same thing: economics. Will that work. He wants to take it to Wall Street, and he wants to take it to the top 1% for sure. However, when it comes to coverage of him, it didn't go well. It never does. Media basically likes to paint him horribly, in my opinion.  His medicare for all plan was well-defended. His free college plan is being embraced by many, as it actually saves money in terms of health costs and can get more buyers into the economy by buying houses instead of paying off debt. More money enters the economy that way. That's big. He didn't back down. He came aggressive. I hate that Bernie always gets covered as the "Crazy Grandpa" who rails all the time. He has been consistent since 1988 on this. If there is anyone who has spearheaded Medicare for All, it's him. He did it.

 

I can't stand how mainstream media will echo all the same talking points and take soundbites to show a person they're crazy.SoThe gun debate wasn't in his best light either. It wasn't the best thing. I like Bernie as a Dem Soc, but I am not sure he represented greatly in that regard.

 

7. Kamala Harris (Sen--CA)-- This was a great showing for Senator Harris. She did best tonight, in my opinion. I don't fear her as prosecutor. It shows her ability to handle the law, and we may need a prosecutor to take down a lawless regime. Senator Harris from the moment she said "This is not a food fight". Let's put food on people's table. She was like my mom when my brother & I argued. She foot in the dirt came in and dropped the hammer. it was a big night from there. She pressed Trump on his cruelty, and it was a great idea to do so when she took on Biden. She was great on talking about being bussed into white schools as a kid. She made sure to go full-in on Biden. Biden reeled off of that. She also went after Biden's time with Obama on not protecting the rights of immigrants far enough. She also went fully in on stating that her officers didn't have to follow deportation rules with an immigrant who didn't have the papers. That was huge, standing stark contrast. She put it out there. I am with that.

 

I still wonder if she goes far enough in terms of healthcare, which is a huge issue for me, but her stances on education, the Kavanaugh hearings, the Barr hearings are making me a believer in her. She did great tonight. The rest of the field better beware of her, and she is certainly smart enough to run laps around Trump. Trump would just have to resort to name-calling again. "Kamala, Smallmala". I could picture it now. Could we have our first female president? The field looks promising.

 

8. Kirsten Gillibrand (Sen-NY) -- I appreciate her willingness to fight for women, but she didn't really speak to anything else other than corruption in Washington. Boy, did we need to hear that, though? The big donors have oligarched the system in a major way. It is way too much. However, Senator Gillibrand should lead the fight to Roe v Wade challengers not as president, but in her current position. She is a great person for that cause, and as a strong lady persona, she gets under the Republican men's skin. However, there won't be a win unless she helps the Senate in that fight. I say she should continue there. 

 

Also, I don't mind her constant interrupting. She is supposed to interject in a debate. It's not a big deal. The debate moderators are supposed to control it better than that. However, only allowing 30 seconds is lame. Once again, another reason why I love town halls.

 

9. Michael Bennet (Sen-CO) -- The Public Health option was only a step in the door to medicare for all, in my opinion. Keeping options for healthcare does little to help everyone. I don't buy it. He does acknowledge the McConnell problem, and he did acknowledge the fact the upward tax bill signed of almost $800 billion was a disaster for the fiscal cliff. He really called that out. I just don't think anything will come of it for him.

 

10. Eric Swalwell (Rep-CA)-- He gets an A+ for being able to tackle the gun debate greatly. He is an amazing candidate on that. I feel that is his strong suit, and he needs to continue on that. He tried to press Pete on why the fire chief wasn't fired. It was a good point. However, he needs to relax a bit on the "Pass the Torch" kind of thing. Just because someone is old doesn't mean their ideas are arcane. We need to get rid of old conservative ideas, but not old people. There's a difference between Bernie old and Biden old. I don't appreciate the age comments, Swalwell. Pass the torch on that, man.

 

That's my take on tonight. What else did you guys think?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moira.
6 minutes ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

I was very impressed with Buttigieg. He was concise, no-nonsense, and participated in the "I can talk louder and longer over you nya-nya!" games the least. To me he made the most sense out of all the candidates. And he is the only candidate that addressed (in a sideways manner because y'know) the college-for-all fallacy. He is absolutely correct that non-college goers need to be able to make an honest decent living as much as college goers, and promoting this idea could go a long way to diversifying the skills in the workforce, re-strengthening college degrees, and actually getting young people hired.

Pete Buttigieg has been my first choice ever since he made his bid in April. I appreciate his total honesty about the recent shooting in South Bend, and he has proved himself to be the most rational and emotionally intelligent candidate so far.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tygersongbird
22 minutes ago, Tabula Rasa said:

Pete Buttigieg has been my first choice ever since he made his bid in April. I appreciate his total honesty about the recent shooting in South Bend, and he has proved himself to be the most rational and emotionally intelligent candidate so far.

I worry about his popularity with the black community (and I'm black) has taken a major dive for the worst. I knew that many didn't accept him because he is gay, which for many is a huge problem. The black community and being gay hasn't worked too well. I don't have to look too far to know that, see rap music in the past. It's getting better in terms of accepting black LGBT+ members. I don't know how far there is to go. I wonder how they'd accept a black asexual? Hmm... 

 

Can things get better? Perhaps. However, this week was not a good sign. He is otherwise a good candidate, though I oppose his not wanting to help end student loan debt. However, making it easier to live without a college education is something I can get behind, like Yang's Freedom Dividend. That being said, he has to show a concerted effort to cleaning up that police force, as to why he fired the other police chief for the one he's currently got, with a 6% black force. It's not a good look. I know many people don't like to hear that, but there does need to be a focus on getting more black officers on, just like all other races. If those can't deal with them, that's not their business. There are plenty of cases of cops making bad statements as is with many precincts shutting down lately. So, Pete has a challenge on him now. Can he help lead the way on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tygersongbird

My isidewith test stated I am 92% Elizabeth Warren, 91% Bernie Sanders, 89% Kamala, 88% Gillibrand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moira.
4 hours ago, tygersongbird said:

I worry about his popularity with the black community (and I'm black) has taken a major dive for the worst.

Keep in mind the media makes it appear that Pete is now THE candidate that has failed black people. But in California and Vermont there have been fatal police shootings with circumstances similar to the one in South Bend, yet did Kamala or Bernie take on the task of actually working with the people to resolve it? No. They were farther removed from the problem.

 

Pete did put forth an effort to recruit more black police officers, and noticed a pattern of falling off the recruitment path. So it isn't for lack of trying.

 

This race is ultimately about who can actually beat trump.

 

A Kamala/Buttigieg ticket would be fine with me. A Buttigieg/Kamala ticket would be even better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
14 hours ago, tygersongbird said:

Well, define socialist really. I define as a socialist.

I use the wikipedia definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism    which matches others.  The key feature is collective / government ownership of the means of production.  Its not a bad idea, but horrific experiences in the 20th century make it as poisoned in my mind as is nationalism. 

 

Democratic socialism IS socialism:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism   and see the home page for democratic socialists of america.

 

Social democracy, which sounds similar, is NOT socialism. Its about a democracy with strong social programs, and I do support that. 

 

 

I'm very concerned that people are trying to blur the line between social programs and socialism when they are 2 very different things.  To me its like blending conservative ideas (which might be OK) with nationalism (which has led to horrible problems) as if there were no difference.   Socialism and Nationalism both killed tens of millions of people in the 20th century and are among mankind's worst ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
13 hours ago, Zagadka said:

"Socialist" is a very loaded term in America. "Socialist" is very different from "social democrat", which is very common in Europe (and would be in America if it didn't contain the word "social")

 

Hm, some of these questions need more levels of "absolutely yes" or "absolutely no". Also, they need to define terms more. "Safe spaces" can mean different things.

"social" and "socialism" are different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhtred
13 hours ago, AspieAlly613 said:

It probably aligned you with the American Socialist political party.

Yes - and I wonder if the "survey" is really just an ad for socialist parties. 

 

In any case I am absolutely anti-socialist.   (An old friend of mine years ago (probably dead now) grew up under Stalin).    While the USSR and Mao's China may not be "ideal" socialism, they are what it seems  to turn into in practice. 

 

BTW  Sweden, Denmark, etc are NOT socialist - there are companies, people can own their own property etc.   They are democracies with strong social programs - something I support. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daveb
6 hours ago, Tabula Rasa said:

A Kamala/Buttigieg ticket would be fine with me.

That would be cool.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tygersongbird
1 hour ago, uhtred said:

Yes - and I wonder if the "survey" is really just an ad for socialist parties. 

 

In any case I am absolutely anti-socialist.   (An old friend of mine years ago (probably dead now) grew up under Stalin).    While the USSR and Mao's China may not be "ideal" socialism, they are what it seems  to turn into in practice. 

 

BTW  Sweden, Denmark, etc are NOT socialist - there are companies, people can own their own property etc.   They are democracies with strong social programs - something I support. 

Fair point. I just think that we have poisoned the word social in our country, with many Neocons thinking "But Venezuela", when there were many other reasons why Venezuela went down. I still am against private insurance companies. Dealing with pricing of prescriptions from them has been a nightmare for me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tygersongbird
6 hours ago, Tabula Rasa said:

Keep in mind the media makes it appear that Pete is now THE candidate that has failed black people. But in California and Vermont there have been fatal police shootings with circumstances similar to the one in South Bend, yet did Kamala or Bernie take on the task of actually working with the people to resolve it? No. They were farther removed from the problem.

 

Pete did put forth an effort to recruit more black police officers, and noticed a pattern of falling off the recruitment path. So it isn't for lack of trying.

 

This race is ultimately about who can actually beat trump.

 

A Kamala/Buttigieg ticket would be fine with me. A Buttigieg/Kamala ticket would be even better!

I can see that, and I gave Mayor Pete the fair chance to really make that case. His department is one of many. I mentioned Philly and Phoenix as other cities that have had to shut down police precincts because of repugnant racists behind the badge. This is far from his problem alone. However, Pete is responsible for Eric Logan and South Bend being how it is. It is an opportunity he must take. If he wins on this end, he would gain multiple big points with me. I like the guy as a person, but this is an issue he must fight and win, for the people in his town. He can't just drop it, even if he is running. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tygersongbird
6 hours ago, Tabula Rasa said:

 

A Kamala/Buttigieg ticket would be fine with me.

Oh, man, could you imagine Buttigieg taking on Mike Pence in a debate? I think Pence would have his lunch money taken there. He is amazing with the hypocrisy of religious bigots. His statement yesterday was very endearing for sure. I would like to see that. Personally, both Buttigieg or Kamala could be both president. However, I think Kamala is better with taking on the AG Barr and those like Kavanaugh overall, as a former prosecutor. She really knows how to press those who are malfeasant without letting them off the hook. So, as president, I'd be satisfied if she were the first one. I am still for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders because they are willing to take on the wealthy Wall Street types, but I can see that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zagadka
2 hours ago, uhtred said:

"social" and "socialism" are different things.

Well, yes, that is the point. But all the right will do whenever anything remotely public-oriented is scream "SOCIALISM!", and a lot of America will follow. That is a dirty word for some reason.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tygersongbird
Just now, Zagadka said:

Well, yes, that is the point. But all the right will do whenever anything remotely public-oriented is scream "SOCIALISM!", and a lot of America will follow. That is a dirty word for some reason.

Well, when Fox News is what you listen to, you begin to develop the groupthink and deindividuation to such cult-like extremes. You begin to parrot all their talking points without further examination. I normally am not a mainstream media type of person anyway, but yeesh with Fox News.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zagadka

And that Fox News segment of the population has roughly 50% of the voters in it. Trump won for reasons, and getting cocky about beating him now will only let that happen again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...