2020 U.S. Presidential Race

[gisiebob]

yeah, it's too bad we can't formulate a government that regulates itself, with like checks and balances or something.

[Sally]

1 hour ago, uhtred said:

It might be a natural consequence.  In a capitalist system there are 2 sources of power: the government and wealthy corporations.  As bad as that may seem, they do tend to balance each other to some extent.  In a socialist system, the government (eg the "people") owns everything, there is no other source of power to limit the governments power. 

 

 

Unfortunately, we in the US have a capitalist system wherein wealthy corporations and individuals have taken over the government and there's  no balance.  

[Zagadka]

Capitalism isn't all bad. Neither is socialism. There seems to be this concept where it is one or the other. They both have good and bad parts, not extreme adherence to principles. I've always liked tenants of syndicalism.

 

There is no reason you can't have a capitalist system with universal healthcare, unions, regulating oversight, and progressive tax structure. Most modern developed democracies demonstrate this.

 

Edit; By the way, we are getting off topic

[AspieAlly613]

21 hours ago, Kisa needs a coffee said:

Guys can we talk about how Joe Biden should probably run as a Republican.  Not even trying to be shady, I'm serious.  If he ran as a Republican he would be able to unite the right and left and actually encourage progress and true centrism.  Not this "both sides are bad even though one of those sides is literal nazis" stupidity.  He really would do more for America as a Republican Senator than he could ever do as a Democratic President.  I wish he would realize that.

What leads you to believe that the center-right would favor him more than the center-left would? Not that I'd mind an extra Susan Collins or an extra Joe Manchin in the Senate, but I'm curious as to why you think he'd do better by switching parties.

[Guest]

I'm hoping if he switches parties more centrist liberals would and that would inflate the pool of insanity that is the Republican Party.  I would LOVE to have to pick between Biden and Kamala in a primary and find out Kamala lost to Biden, or find out my State Senator is somebody OTHER than Ted Cruz and is somebody who is considered a hardcore conservative but more of a John McCain type.  I would even like to see more people like Kasich in higher positions within the Republican party because even though I disagree with everything Kasich stands for, Kasich will listen to other people, knows when to drop an argument (e.g. when gay marriage was made a federal right he said he PERSONALLY wasn't okay with it but the court spoke so he'd go with what they wanted), and can work with Democrats.  What the Republican party needs more than anything right now are people who can prove they can work across party lines.  Dems have proven that they are willing and able to a fault, we need more of that energy in the Republican party too.

 

Whether it is better for Biden himself I'm not sure, but I think it's better for the country as a whole if this happened.

[Sally]

27 minutes ago, Kisa needs a coffee said:

 What the Republican party needs more than anything right now are people who can prove they can work across party lines. 

Unfortunately, all those Republicans are dead.  

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

On 6/28/2019 at 7:39 PM, uhtred said:

I don't think anyone is openly pushing for imperialism anymore - at least I hope not. 

 

Bruce Gilley recently wrote an article "The Case for Colonialism":

"A senior academic has provoked storms of protest by calling for the return of colonialism – first from critics of his ideas, then from free speech advocates after his article was withdrawn due to threats of violence against the journal editor who published it.

Bruce Gilley, an associate professor of political science at Portland State University in Oregon, stunned his fellow academics when he wrote an article for the peer-reviewed journal Third World Quarterly entitled: “The Case For Colonialism.”

Source: 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/colonialism-academic-article-bruce-gilley-threats-violence-published-withdrawn-third-world-quarterly-a7996371.html

Meanwhile, Niall Ferguson recently wrote "Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World", a book praising British imperialism.

[uhtred]

9 hours ago, Sally said:

Unfortunately, we in the US have a capitalist system wherein wealthy corporations and individuals have taken over the government and there's  no balance.  

I think its partially true but there is still some independent power in the government.  Its also not influenced by a single corporation but by many different ones and they don't always have common interests. 

 

Far from ideal, but I think its better than having no power outside of the government.

[uhtred]

5 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

Bruce Gilley recently wrote an article "In Defense of Colonialism":

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/colonialism-academic-article-bruce-gilley-threats-violence-published-withdrawn-third-world-quarterly-a7996371.html

 

Meanwhile, Niall Ferguson recently wrote "Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World", a book praising British imperialism.

Yes, but these guys seem far outside of the mainstream.  Like the white supremacists who march every now and then.  

[Sally]

2 hours ago, uhtred said:

I think its partially true but there is still some independent power in the government.  Its also not influenced by a single corporation but by many different ones and they don't always have common interests. 

 

Far from ideal, but I think its better than having no power outside of the government.

At this moment in the US, there is no independent power.  The three powers are pretty much united: the  Supreme Court (conservative majority), the Presidency (conservative), and Congress (the conservative Senate won't let anything past it).  And the corporations indeed have one common interest: profit.  This is an unusual time -- I don't remember another such time in my lifetime of monitoring politics.  

[AspieAlly613]

Earlier I made a post suggesting that support that Biden loses would tend to migrate to Buttigieg.  This poll shows that I was probably very wrong about that.

[Sally]

Biden's getting lots of money from wealthy middle-of-the-road donors who don't want the boat rocked, but as more debates are held, he'll lose support.   He doesn't do well in debates, and that's where most of the public see the candidates, not at the kind of campaign events that he does.  

[Tabula Rasa]

I need someone to convince me that Trump won't win simply because he is the incumbent.

[Zagadka]

Trump still has a very good chance of winning, especially if the Democrat discourse is "TRUMP BAD"

[Tyger Songbird]

So, after rewatching the 2 nights of debates, I decided to come up with some new notes at hand. I always do this, because first reaction is often the one that's wrong. So, I wanted to watch it without much reaction and just listen. So, I figure a more balanced objective from me will come of that. I think I saw some things that were better the first night in my perspective, than anything else. So, here I go.

 

First off, like I always say, I don't look to debates to see how a candidate can handle the presidency. I look to where they stand on issues. You're not debating a world leader as president; you may have to handle Mitch McConnell, though. So, there's that. I do want a candidate who can handle all tough debate questions and national stages, but I am an issues person, a policy person. Debate stages aren't that substantial to me in terms of being able to not back down from a fight. We need alliance, not bickering, is what I'm saying. We need policy at hand, not bullying or knocking people down. So, I am a town hall person, facing my constituents is a big deal.

 

That being said, the debates were poorly moderated. I especially dislike Chuck Todd always interjecting and subverting all potential policy points. He did that. Also, if it's a debate night, we need no advertising commercials. Advertise on the side of the screen or something. Don't stop the debate because you have to pay advertisers. It's less of a policy thing and more ratings at that point.

 

Here's my double take on the whole matter

 

1. I have to give a little bit more respect to Marianne Williamson. I highly criticized her over the whole crazy speaking on the plans matter, but I do see what she is meaning with the whole context. I think news headlines took it to such an incredible extreme to make her seem like a wacko, but I will go with this. She's not wrong. To beat Donald Trump where I'm at is going to take somebody who can stand toe-to-toe with his insults, disparaging remarks, and his ability to distract from the issues at hand by using insults to make himself look cool to his base. Today, DTJ went after Kamala for not being "black enough" test, and it worked because it got everybody talking about him. They do this to gaslight the issue, and to play the victim whenever anyone comes after them. I'm being attacked on Twitter again! They do this stuff to rile up the base so they can feel like everyone's out to get them. It's classic boogeyman, while they distract from horrible stuff they do in secret. It sucks, but they do have a powerful following. It will take someone who has a powerful enough ability to pull the wool from their eyes to win, as well as pull voters who have never felt like voting before to come out to the ballot box. However, that's going to be hard: Florida just passed a law stating felons can only vote when they pax their fines in full, and Gerrymandering was ruled constitutional by Kavanaugh and the boys. This is going to be tough. So, there's going to be a battle. She was not wrong on that.

 

I also have to give her props on two things: one the issues in Central America she highlighted, and two she mentioned reforming the health system in general, starting with food to clean energy. She was really right on with that. She was also the only one who was able to speak about reparations for African American communities, which wasn't highlighted enough in my eyes (then again, I am black so...) She may appear crazy, but I think there was some depth behind her madness. Call me crazy, but we can't talk healthcare being a sufficient end until we talk about being fully healthy and not getting so many toxins and pollutants out of our food. That's a big deal. I'll give her a bit of respect on that.

 

2. Tulsi Gabbard did not get much coverage in the debate, but I feel she will afterwards. I know the right loves her because she's not exactly up to impeachment and all that, but I feel she will win more popularity for her ability to hold conversations on foreign policy. I don't really like her much, but I will give her before some of the other dem candidates.

 

3. Beto should run for senator honestly. I love the fact he wants to protect elections and voting rights, and he is a skilled orator and inspirational speaker, but this is not his time really. He other than that doesn't have much to go on other than that.

 

4. De Blasio may be a bull in a China shop, but he's no dummy on this. He actually did pretty well in terms of showing command of how to debate, and he wasn't afraid of anybody to do it. The debate was poorly orchestrated (Thank you, Chuck Todd), but he still did pretty okay. I'd still rather have him where he is at right now, but you can't accuse De Blasio of being a pushover.

 

5. Elizabeth Warren has a strong lead to take over Biden. She has the inside track, and I feel she would be the perfect candidate to help forge the way. She's big on finances, and unlike the current president, reads things. A former professor could take him to school, and I feel she wouldn't be small on a stage at all. That being said...

 

6. Kamala Harris can beat Trump in a debate. She really can. I'd say her more than anybody could. She understands legality when you hear her speak, and she doesn't mince words easily with others. I think the legality in the president would work quite well for us, to restore the proper balance in it. The law-breaking everywhere is infuriating.

 

7. Cory Booker's side eye is giving me nightmares. Baby bonds are awesome, but I am scared on that end.

 

8. I am still with Andrew Yang on the Freedom Dividend, but I just don't see a presidency for him. Can he be in the cabinet?

 

9. I have 5 candidates who could still win this thing. However, I have my prediction as to who that one could be.

 

10. Who's running against Mitch McConnell? I'm tired of compromising with him. Who's running against Lindsey Graham. The Senate races matter more than ever now.

 

11. July 17 can't come fast enough.

[Zagadka]

The new stupidest thing this season was the accusation of MSNBC adding a pimple to Tulsi (it was originally from TMZ and Reddit, so there's that). She properly laughed and dismissed it, but that it is even in the news is hilarious. They really don't like her.

[Tyger Songbird]

1 hour ago, Zagadka said:

The new stupidest thing this season was the accusation of MSNBC adding a pimple to Tulsi (it was originally from TMZ and Reddit, so there's that). She properly laughed and dismissed it, but that it is even in the news is hilarious. They really don't like her.

Yeah, I can see MSNBC playing into its war-hawk crowd. Look, Brian Williams worked in the White House with Bush. Talking about removing ourselves from wars in Iran and Afghanistan is not something that war hawks like to do. Then to come out and say the truth of the Saudis is not popular either. She was undressing the politics of war that our leaders are obsessed with.

 

I have not really many problems with her as a person, but boy do people have it out for her. Of course, if you are a Tulsi fan, I won't say anything against you.

[Back to Avalon]

3 hours ago, tygersongbird said:

6. Kamala Harris can beat Trump in a debate.

Hillary Clinton beat Trump in the debates. Unfortunately, it didn't matter.

 

3 hours ago, tygersongbird said:

8. I am still with Andrew Yang on the Freedom Dividend

It's a nice idea that's bound to be popular; after all, who wouldn't support a person who wants to hand out $1000 checks each month? It's like winning a smaller version of the Publishers' Clearing House sweepstakes. But he looked like a deer in headlights when the moderator said it would cost $3.2 trillion, as if he hadn't bothered to crunch the numbers and figure out the logistics.

[Tyger Songbird]

19 minutes ago, Back to Avalon said:

It's a nice idea that's bound to be popular; after all, who wouldn't support a person who wants to hand out $1000 checks each month? It's like winning a smaller version of the Publishers' Clearing House sweepstakes. But he looked like a deer in headlights when the moderator said it would cost $3.2 trillion, as if he hadn't bothered to crunch the numbers and figure out the logistics.

Actually, he had answered the question afterwards. I thought he was surprised he actually got a question. He didn't get many in the night. He did mention how the money would come back in by subverting mass incarceration and things on welfare overall by doing so. While we'll probably never know whether that works better than the current welfare is true, we don't know. Plus, lots of money is lost in the system by either military spending or by using it to do things like divorce because you have no money and fight over finances. So, that's one thing that could work. I've seen him explain it better in townhalls and in various interviews. Again, I'm not a Yang Gang person, but the UBI is not infeasible.

[uhtred]

On 6/29/2019 at 11:50 PM, Sally said:

At this moment in the US, there is no independent power.  The three powers are pretty much united: the  Supreme Court (conservative majority), the Presidency (conservative), and Congress (the conservative Senate won't let anything past it).  And the corporations indeed have one common interest: profit.  This is an unusual time -- I don't remember another such time in my lifetime of monitoring politics.  

The corporations have a common goal - for themselves but that doesn't mean that they always work together since sometimes one corporation gaining more money means another loses.  They compete for funding - the environmental cleanup industry  ($100B just for Hanford!!!)  is competing with the medical industry which is competing with defense industry for government funds.

 

The government is mostly conservative these days - which I personally blame on idiots who were not willing to support pretty much *anyone* rather than Trump.  His supreme court picks will be with us for decades. 

 

The real issue is that I don't see any way to get another source of "power".  The "people" aren't really a source of power - the power resides in whoever organizes them since as individuals they can't take collective action. 

[uhtred]

15 hours ago, Zagadka said:

Trump still has a very good chance of winning, especially if the Democrat discourse is "TRUMP BAD"

Yup.  I'm especially worried that the more extreme liberal won't vote for a moderate democrat and the moderate democrats won't vote for an extreme democrat, while almost all the republicans will vote for trump over *any* democratic candidate. 

Also, too many democratic candidates with ideas that sound nice (forgiving student debt, $1000/month for everyone,  "wealth" taxes etc) without having worked out the rather serious practicalities. 

[uhtred]

15 hours ago, Tabula Rasa said:

I need someone to convince me that Trump won't win simply because he is the incumbent.

Incumbents often win, but not always if you look at history. 

[iff]

16 hours ago, Back to Avalon said:

Hillary Clinton beat Trump in the debates. Unfortunately, it didn't matter.

That's true. One commentator compared trumps performance to a ship trying to hit an iceberg and once it failed, try to hit it again and again

[Sally]

20 hours ago, Back to Avalon said:

Hillary Clinton beat Trump in the debates. Unfortunately, it didn't matter.

It may indeed have mattered, since she won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.  

[Zagadka]

Whelp, Biden is still leading with about 33%, Sanders 15%, Harris 11%. We're doomed.

[Tabula Rasa]

4 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

Whelp, Biden is still leading with about 33%, Sanders 15%, Harris 11%. We're doomed.

Either the country has by and large gone politically braindead, or the country is afraid of her own greatness and is self-sabotaging.

[degenerate]

I'm voting democrat. That much I know. I can only hope the rest of the country comes with me. Though, the majority voted democrat in the last election, yet a republican sits in office.

[Sally]

43 minutes ago, degenerate said:

I'm voting democrat. That much I know. I can only hope the rest of the country comes with me. Though, the majority voted democrat in the last election, yet a republican sits in office.

Because of the damned Electoral College.  

[Sally]

Don't worry about the polls, now.  For one thing, different  polls say different things (and often they use landlines, which means mostly older people), and it's VERY early now, so  a lot of these 20 candidates are going to drop out in the next six months or so.  

 

But for god's sake, vote Democrat, no matter who the nominee is.  We just CAN'T deal with another 4 years of Trump.   He's already ripped to shreds the environmental regulations and the abortion allowances and the safety net protecting poor people and appointed a lot of  awful federal judges to non-Supreme Court courts.  

[Tyger Songbird]

6 hours ago, Tabula Rasa said:

Either the country has by and large gone politically braindead, or the country is afraid of her own greatness and is self-sabotaging.

Granted it's CNN, but I just saw a poll where Biden was only up 5 points on Kamala Harris, 22-17%. Biden through their polls took a dip. https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/01/politics/2020-democratic-candidates-poll/index.html

 

There are other factors at play for Biden's lead. Electability, ability to beat Trump, black voters by age bracket. Those things are by strata giving him a lead. However, it's dwindling.