Election 2020

[The Feral Slasher]

Those 24 hour politcal news networks are toxic. I try to stay away from them the best I can, but my wife treats them like background noise. Puts them on by default whenever she can. It amazes me how narrow their talking points are. So much that needs coverage, but always the same 2-3 things over and over again.

ETA: Warren is pretty darn progressive. I do not think she'd fit in a centrist party.

I agree....at least i dont disagree

[Sour Masher]

So here's Mayor Pete praising the Tea Party while Obama was president. Fuck that guy.

https://twitter.com/ChrisDJackson/st...728363522?s=19

Is that sincere praise, or an attempt to reach across for votes? Hasn't Bernie be rightly praised for braving the lion's den that is Fox News to try to spread his message across the aisle?

[gcstomp]

re: mayor pete, no idea what you find offensive with what he said some 10 years ago. the link shows mayor petes usual thoughtfulness and trying to find common ground and seems like something obama would have said. btw, easiest thing to do is tear down everyone who you decide isnt your guy, with this new fangled machinery used as a shmear machine. any bit of online utterances, can be edited/pasted into a 9 second clip and titled with something outrageous to serve any purpose.

the lineup for dems, any and every one of them, is a thousand times better than trump in terms of thoughtfulness, morality, experience in governing, and just in better humanity and less criminality. not a high bar.. to take an axe to everyone, it is part of what it means to be a dem, to be filled with morale outrage. while part of what it means to be a repub is to close ranks, hold fast vs the dam dem socialists comin for your guns and looking to make you gay by reading science, or whatever is justification for ignoring facts in lieu of this impressive to behold fortress of unity of rep party.

cheap shots are easy, and catchy, and fun, and it is full extent of what trump produces, 2nd grade nicknames for everyone he deems an opponent, but coming from those not wading into fascism, that means those supporting trump, it just supports the mad king. say no to the mad king, either produce positivity in pointing out what someone said with value, or continue playing cannon fodder to supporting the mad king.

[Ken]

Of course not, it's half Ken's party too

Ha, well, then I'd let him chime in to correct, delete, and add to my fictitious platform.

Sorry I missed this earlier! Well, sure, I'll take at look at "our" platform, hah.

I find myself pretty far left on two big issues--health care and climate change, and several other issues like gun control and military spending

Let's break those down.

Healthcare - I think anyone in the middle (including me), can realize our current system is broken and needs to be changed. I think it's obvious that some kind of program that provides basic needs to everyone is needed. We may have trouble coming to agreement on how to prevent abuse of that system. My biggest fear is that by providing too much of a free lunch to everyone, we take away those benefits from those who have extreme needs. At some level it's a zero sum game - obviously there's part of the program that involves new taxes to generate money, but I fear that part of the utility provided by such a program takes away the existing benefits that are currently granted to those who need it the most - think special needs kids, rare diseases, etc. Perhaps my fears are unfounded, I could certainly be proven wrong here.

Climate change - with you here. I don't think it takes much brainpower to see what's going on.

Gun control - we need more than thoughts and prayers. Increased regulation is a necessity.

Military spending - I agree that this is not that progressive anymore.

1. Candidates in this third party would believe in the role of government being larger than just police and military, but be more wary of government expansion than progressives.
2. Candidates would generally be more fiscally conservative than progressives, mostly preferring less costly and less big government solutions on some issues, but also embracing taxation and regulation to an extent taboo in the GOP.
3. Candidates would generally be more socially progressive than GOPers.
4. Candidates in this party would not be confined by the extremes of either current party dogma on controversial issues, and can tout themselves and individuals with particular thoughts rather than representatives of rigid positions historically held by both current major parties.
5. In a perfect world, this party could be formed from the ground up on the position of not taking special interest money to finance campaigns, allowing candidates to run on more ideologically pure grounds, stating positions as they are personally held, rather than how they align with a rigid preexisting party doctrine structured by the pockets backing that party. But that would put them at a disadvantage in elections.
6. The candidates in the party would look different, depending on district. In some areas, that means a candidate would be categorized as conservative in a different state or district, or liberal in another state or district. I am thinking specifically of blue dog dems in southern states that do not align very much at all with more progressive ideals in the Dem party, or GOPers in liberal states that are called RHINOs within the GOP. This party would likely include a lot of those folks.
7. Perhaps most importantly, expectations among voters for this party would be that their candidates could and would align on a case by case basis with those from the other two parties. It would not be a negative if they did so. It would be a way for voters to back someone that may align with Democrats on some issues, like health care, and GOPers on some issues, like gun control (I should add, as more evidence that I am not building my own party here, that I'm highly progressive on gun control; I wouldn't care if the government banned all hand guns, high capacity mags, added extreme background checks, etc; this is an example of the diversity of candidates though--they would fight it out in the party for which ideas to lean left and right on).

All great ideas and align with what I would hope for.

My only minor difference is that I'm not quite as progressive as you on gun control. I think we need huge change, but I wouldn't take Gregg's handgun that he uses for protecting his home away. High capacity mags? Get rid of them. More background checks - yup. And I'd be willing to go even further in other areas (put huge taxes on all ammunition for one thing - similar to how cigarettes were addressed in the 90s) , but I don't see a near-future where we confiscate hand guns. Maybe I'm taking it too lightly. There's obviously a problem that needs addressing, and now.

[Sour Masher]

My only minor difference is that I'm not quite as progressive as you on gun control. I think we need huge change, but I wouldn't take Gregg's handgun that he uses for protecting his home away. High capacity mags? Get rid of them. More background checks - yup. And I'd be willing to go even further in other areas (put huge taxes on all ammunition for one thing - similar to how cigarettes were addressed in the 90s) , but I don't see a near-future where we confiscate hand guns. Maybe I'm taking it too lightly. There's obviously a problem that needs addressing, and now.

I'm not a hardliner on extreme gun control, because while I'm for it, I also understand and can appreciate the opposing position on it to a point, and, frankly, while senseless gun violence is a huge problem, and the rise of mass shootings is horrific, the overall stats show our perception of gun deaths, on the whole, is skewed by the horrific and senseless nature of highly publicized mass shootings.

I get the freedom argument and the history of gun freedom in this country. If everyone gun owners was like Gregg, there would not be an issue, but having a weapon designed to kill other human beings doesn't seem to me like it should be a sacred right given to all members of society, no matter how deranged they are, or how much damage that gun can do to masses of innocent people. I think you recently said in the Astros thread--"this is why we can't have nice things." That is my feelings about guns, except I don't think they are all that nice (though, shooting one at some point is on my bucket list). But, yeah, if folks like you and me were the ones making the decisions, I'm sure we could totally come to a compromise that seems fair to us and others.

But we are not, and the reason I consider myself more left on this issue is that I can understand hardline anti-gun folks, but it is hard for me to understand how hardline some gun advocates are--no regulation, no solution that restricts ownership or types of guns or ammunition is acceptable to some. That position is a minority position, but the gun lobby is so powerful, it doesn't matter than most gun people are okay with some level of reform. It is like military spending. Those two issues seem to have widespread support, but the system and money in play mean nothing ever changes, despite change of some kind being the will of the majority.

ETA: I had a respectful debate with a pro-gun friend of my mom's once when I was a teenager. His position was that it was his right as an American and collector of military items that he should be able to purchase and use any and all arms used by the military (because that is who he'd have to fight to protect his freedom if the government ever turned on him), including full auto assault weapons. I asked him if regular citizens should be able to buy tanks with no regulations or checks, and he said yes. But I finally got him when I asked if citizens should be able to buy nuclear warheads, which were used in WWII. He had to think about it, but eventually, I was able to find his line for what "arms" any and all Americans should have the God-given right to own. For him, it was nuclear weapons. He trusted his fellow Americans with full auto assault rifles and even tanks and grenades, but not nukes .

[Ken]

having a weapon designed to kill other human beings doesn't seem to me like it should be a sacred right given to all members of society, no matter how deranged they are, or how much damage that gun can do to masses of innocent people.

Exactly

I think you recently said in the Astros thread--"this is why we can't have nice things." That is my feelings about guns, except I don't think they are all that nice (though, shooting one at some point is on my bucket list). But, yeah, if folks like you and me were the ones making the decisions, I'm sure we could totally come to a compromise that seems fair to us and others.

Definitely, we are both reasonable about the topics involved and understand that no changes is the worst option. The problem we have now is that the people who we have elected to put better regulation in place are not reasonable.

it is hard for me to understand how hardline some gun advocates are--no regulation, no solution that restricts ownership or types of guns or ammunition is acceptable to some.

I don't understand it either. It's ridiculous.

ETA: I had a respectful debate with a pro-gun friend of my mom's once when I was a teenager. His position was that it was his right as an American and collector of military items that he should be able to purchase and use any and all arms used by the military (because that is who he'd have to fight to protect his freedom if the government ever turned on him), including full auto assault weapons. I asked him if regular citizens should be able to buy tanks with no regulations or checks, and he said yes. But I finally got him when I asked if citizens should be able to buy nuclear warheads, which were used in WWII. He had to think about it, but eventually, I was able to find his line for what "arms" any and all Americans should have the God-given right to own. For him, it was nuclear weapons. He trusted his fellow Americans with full auto assault rifles and even tanks and grenades, but not nukes .

I've used the generic "bombs" argument when having this discussion. So you think it's okay to have things that are specifically made to kill people eh? So, no reason to take away those bombs from the Tsarnaev brothers right? Oh, that's different? Why exactly?

Full disclosure, I've owned guns for the last 20 years, I used to be an active hunter (don't have as much time these days). I have a rifle and a shotgun in a safe in my closet, both of which I purchased after taking hunter safety classes. And I own a handgun to protect my home that I purchased after taking a concealed carry class (although I never carry it, nor did I ever intend to), and it's locked in a safe beside my bed. None of them have come out of their safes in a year. I'd happily give them all up if it would help protect my kids at their schools, and I support any regulation that leads us on that path.

[Sour Masher]

re: mayor pete, no idea what you find offensive with what he said some 10 years ago. the link shows mayor petes usual thoughtfulness and trying to find common ground and seems like something obama would have said. btw, easiest thing to do is tear down everyone who you decide isnt your guy, with this new fangled machinery used as a shmear machine. any bit of online utterances, can be edited/pasted into a 9 second clip and titled with something outrageous to serve any purpose.

the lineup for dems, any and every one of them, is a thousand times better than trump in terms of thoughtfulness, morality, experience in governing, and just in better humanity and less criminality. not a high bar.. to take an axe to everyone, it is part of what it means to be a dem, to be filled with morale outrage. while part of what it means to be a repub is to close ranks, hold fast vs the dam dem socialists comin for your guns and looking to make you gay by reading science, or whatever is justification for ignoring facts in lieu of this impressive to behold fortress of unity of rep party.

cheap shots are easy, and catchy, and fun, and it is full extent of what trump produces, 2nd grade nicknames for everyone he deems an opponent, but coming from those not wading into fascism, that means those supporting trump, it just supports the mad king. say no to the mad king, either produce positivity in pointing out what someone said with value, or continue playing cannon fodder to supporting the mad king.

I agree with this, largely. Of course, that is not to say we should not debate and vet during the primaries. And if there are legit issues with candidates, we should call them out. But I don't see a politicians reaching out across the aisle to get voters as super egregious.

[The Feral Slasher]

Exactly



Definitely, we are both reasonable about the topics involved and understand that no changes is the worst option. The problem we have now is that the people who we have elected to put better regulation in place are not reasonable.




I don't understand it either. It's ridiculous.



I've used the generic "bombs" argument when having this discussion. So you think it's okay to have things that are specifically made to kill people eh? So, no reason to take away those bombs from the Tsarnaev brothers right? Oh, that's different? Why exactly?

Full disclosure, I've owned guns for the last 20 years, I used to be an active hunter (don't have as much time these days). I have a rifle and a shotgun in a safe in my closet, both of which I purchased after taking hunter safety classes. And I own a handgun to protect my home that I purchased after taking a concealed carry class (although I never carry it, nor did I ever intend to), and it's locked in a safe beside my bed. None of them have come out of their safes in a year. I'd happily give them all up if it would help protect my kids at their schools, and I support any regulation that leads us on that path.

Sour Ken party wants to take your tanks and bombs ! They must be stopped !

[Ken]

say no to the mad king, either produce positivity in pointing out what someone said with value, or continue playing cannon fodder to supporting the mad king.

You are right, now the scary part, does anyone have evidence that Ivanka doesn't have a dragon?

[The Feral Slasher]

Dude, you forgot nukes.

I dont care about nukes. I dont own any of those

[Kevin Seitzer]

I dont care about nukes. I dont own any of those

I disagree....

[Kevin Seitzer]

Your party even has a candy:

[Teenwolf]

I agree with this, largely. Of course, that is not to say we should not debate and vet during the primaries. And if there are legit issues with candidates, we should call them out. But I don't see a politicians reaching out across the aisle to get voters as super egregious.

Okay, Sour, GCStomp, tell me if these issues that I raise are smears pr legitimate concerns. Buttigieg invented black supporters in South Carolina, including 3 big name co-headliners, plus 400 others, which it turns out 62% of the list contacted were white. Many of the people listed were shocked that they were listed as supporters, including one of Bernie Sanders' state co-chairs. Turns out the endorsement email was all in the fine print, including an opt-out to not endorse him. Pretty scandalous, right? This is after his campaign had put out a narrative that black voters didn't support him because they're homophobic. Again, pretty awful stuff, right?

As the mayor of a 38% black district with a 2% black police force, he fired the first black police chief after systemic racism was revealed in recordings. So that's his record. He knows black people hate him so he smears them as homophobic, then invents black support that doesn't exist.

He also went from supporting M4A in February to attacking Warren for it in Oct.

Black voters from his own district hate him because they're buying into the smears, or is their hatred justified? I call him Mayo-Pete because he's only got the whites, and therefore can't win. His small bump has come from spending a ton of cash in the first 2 states plus tons of uncritical glowing media hype. Paper tiger, nothing under the hood.

I ask you, do you honestly think these are simply baseless smears?

[The Feral Slasher]

Your party even has a candy:

Only 14 calories per serving !

[Teenwolf]

I admit that I'm finally following the polls closely as they start to matter a bit more.

Bernie hit a low around 14% nationally after the heart attack, but has steadily climbed since. Warren was a strong 2nd around 26% at the time. Sanders' strong debate after the heart attack has him up to 18.8% nationally, with Warren slowly receding support after being hit on M4A in the last debate. About a week ago, Sanders was consistently around 3 pts behind her, yesterday 2 pts, today 1.5 pts.

Biden 27%
Warren 20.3%
Sanders 18.8%

All those parents supporting Biden are going to get an earful from their kids at Thanksgiving, that's when Biden finally sinks! Honestly, I dunno what it will take, hopefully the gateway drug answer hurts him slightly... I'm a little nervous, but still have faith he will be more publicly exposed in a more embarrassing fashion. At some point. Fingers crossed he looks awful in the debate tomorrow.

A question about these numbers: Now that Warren has pivoted away from Sanders' M4A, and towards Buttigieg's plan, will that hurt her numbers, or will that help her numbers? I think it hurts her authenticity as well as her progressive base, and gains little to show for the sacrafice.

Assuming a strong debate from Sanders, he should easily climb to 2nd soon, and Biden isn't attracting new voters, he's only drawing the voters who haven't paid attention, and think he has some massive lead. Given that Biden's support is soft, I love Sanders' chances right now. Even the 1-2 pts that Deval Patrick and Mike Bloomberg could potentially siphon from Biden or some from Warren, I love how the polling is looking for the most part, with my bias thinking that Bernie holds an extra 3 pts on average over what the polls say, given the youth/unlikely voter factor. My bias could be wrong, but I present it openly.