USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[Cope]

I don't see it at all, any non-left-loony Democrat is going to be horrified once they actually DO get the truth on this guy. The mainstream has been if anything too soft on him because they don't want to anger the left too much.

I don't disagree that Sanders could be dismantled by a person capable of articulating the pitfalls of hard left economics, but in a contest between two populist, polarising wild card candidates all bets are off.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I don't think so... what he said, recently,

Sanders says he wouldn't pull troops from Iraq via tweet


Bernie Sanders - Foreign Policy - The New York Times
Q.Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear missile test?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you consider military force for an humanitarian intervention?
A. Yes.
Q. Apart from responding to an attack on the United States or treaty ally, what are the conditions under which you would consider the use of American military force?

A. First priority is to protect the American people. MIlitary force is sometimes necessary,- but always- always- as the last resort. And blustery threats of force can often signal weakness as much as strength. diminishing US deterrence, credibility and security in the process.

Two years ago, Read: Bernie Sanders's big foreign policy speech at Westminster College, where Winston Churchill in 1946 gave his famous "Iron Curtain" speech.

I’ve no doubt Sanders would take a more orderly approach to isolationism than has DJT. That said, Bernie’s record and existing comments from his policy advisors paint a startling picture of his as yet vague foreign policy:

The shift underscores a central foreign-policy message of the 2020 presidential election: The days of the United States projecting power around the world primarily through its military are officially numbered. If the race pits Trump against Sanders, regardless of the outcome, the America that instinctively sent the cavalry to the rescue won’t be returning anytime soon.

“Sanders will represent, like Trump, maybe in a more civilized way, a more sophisticated way, a more predictable way, the U.S. partially withdrawing from world affairs,” Gérard Araud, the former French ambassador to the United States, told me.

Many European officials consider Sanders “a left-wing isolationist,” Araud explained. They’re as “terrified” by the prospect of his presidency as of a second Trump term, because it would sow doubts about America’s continued commitment to NATO and sustaining the U.S.-led international system.

Duss contrasted his boss’s tactics and Trump’s, noting that Sanders would consult with allies and not announce changes to America’s overseas military presence “by tweet” or “treat the United States military as a paid mercenary force.” But he didn’t necessarily distinguish between their strategic objectives.

“There are real questions about the cost of maintaining these huge military presences in some of these places, so we’re definitely interested in thinking hard about whether we can reduce the number of troops in these places and still meet these [security] commitments we’ve made to these partners,” he said, when I asked about U.S. troops stationed in countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Germany. “Economically, it’s not really sustainable in the long term.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...policy/606364/

Maybe “he won’t really go that far,” but people said the same thing about Trump. Talking about economic sustainability whilst campaigning on programs that cost more than the entire defense budget is almost certainly disingenuous. I agree with Sanders that the DoD should be audited and budgets re-evaluated accordingly. But in reality, I would argue that looks more like Buttigieg’s plan to reallocate and adjust USM presence around the world to address current threats in Europe and Asia, as opposed to broad commitments to foist austerity onto the military at a time when the US faces an array of growing peer-level threats. I think it’s safe to say Sanders ought to be far more detailed on policy in general, especially foreign and defense policy, than he has been.

Until then, I have a hard time trusting a guy to act in the best interests of the US when he’s previously used his political power, even as mayor of Burlington, to undermine US foreign policy. The one ace in the hole that I think might carry him to the White House in the era of post-truth politics is that it’s difficult not to like Bernie:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Ludicus]

Definition of a Rigged System DNC changing the rules to benefit a billionaire.

The Intercept's Ryan Grim, citing Federal Elections Commission data, noted Bloomberg donated $325,000 to the DNC in November 2019. "Totally normal system," said Grim

---------
Year 2017

ivn.us/20 DNC to court: "we are a private corporation with no obligation to follow rules"

DNC Lawyers Argue DNC Has Right to Pick Candidates in Back Rooms

Attorneys claim the words 'impartial' and 'evenhanded'—as used in the DNC Charter—can't be interpreted by a court of law- we do not owe voters an "impartial" or "evenhanded" election

---------
Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum

Franklin Roosevelt's Address Announcing the Second New Deal
October 31, 1936
"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred"

[Gaidin]

Ludi, you really can't tell anything much of what's going to happen until the SC Debate and Super Tuesday. Because no matter what you think the DNC can do with 300k, the voters are going to vote. And it's like I said with his manner of campaigning, at some point, the only people that can stop Bloomberg are the tv stations themselves, which will likely be happy to take his money until November.

Also, I will say I find your 1936 quote really god damn ironic. That was an era when the parties didn't democratically choose their nominees by popular vote. They just met at convention and just picked them. Screw the population at large. Either the Corporations have learned more, or the people are just...

[Ludicus]

you really can't tell anything much of what's going to happen until... Super Tuesday

Indeed.Let's wait and see...

the only people that can stop Bloomberg are the tv stations themselves.

I was thinking about this today...
Twitter suspends 70 accounts posting identical pro-Bloomberg ...

A few days ago, the Wall Street Journal (1) reported the campaign was hiring "deputy digital organizers" that might do everything from phone banking to social media posts, but if they want to keep their accounts, then they'll probably want to vary slightly from the recommended messaging.

(1) Bloomberg is hiring hundreds of workers for $2,500 a month to promote candidate to all their contacts

[Gaidin]

Indeed.Let's wait and see...

Also, let me clarify my context regarding Super Tuesday. It's more because that's the first day that Bloomberg is actually on the ballot than all this time that he's been running. We have to actually see how he's going to do at the voting booths versus all polls and statistics people like to play with. That's why Super Tuesday is a key thing in Bloomberg vs Bernie for all Bloomberg can break a money rule and go on as long as he wants no matter how badly he's doing.

[Heathen Hammer]

The problem is that Blloomberg is more unpleasant to Democrats, then to Republicans. Especially for the neo-marxist types that could potentially vote for Pete or Warren if Bernie got shafted, but they would definitely be spiteful if DNC hands over nomination to IRL mr. Burns.

[Gaidin]

The problem you're talking about just doesn't matter until you see the numbers from the votes.

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm sorry, but if Bloomberg is desperate enough to pay people to write good things about him on the Internet, I'm having trouble believing in his popularity.

[alhoon]

I don't see it at all, any non-left-loony Democrat is going to be horrified once they actually DO get the truth on this guy. The mainstream has been if anything too soft on him because they don't want to anger the left too much.

Yes, it is unlikely USA would elect a communist, but Trump is such a disgrace that you can't be 100% sure. Still, I would say once Sanders get close to the nomination and he starts to get broadsides from Trump about thinks he actually espouses - like close ties with Venezuela's socialsts, workers getting shares from the company's stock that is paid by the company itself, Unions having a mandatory seat at the table as the gradual take-over of the company by the workers takes place etc. people will realize how bat-poop crazy that old man is.
But the other side also has a bat-poop crazy guy.

It comes down to the devil you know and a booming economy. Which are both in Trump's favor.

[Phier]

Trump is such a disgrace.

Counter point.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I wish I lived in a swing state, I'd actually enjoy going.

Also people like this.

https://streamable.com/w0i6o?p

Thats from just a day ago.

Trump supporters don't see him as a disgrace, and I can't see how that support hasn't grown despite the lies and smear attempts. My feeling is his base has grown.

[Akar]

No his supporters don't think he's a disgrace, other wise they wouldn't support him. Your "feelings" don't really match up with reality. If you think his base has grown thats absolutely laughable, just look at the 2018 elections if you need proof. Also I'm not sure what a crowd of a hundred or so people at a trump rally has to do with him not being a disgrace. Just because he has support doesn't mean he isn't destroying America and her institutions.


edit: As an aside, calling Sanders a Communist shows a shocking lack of understanding of not only Sander's policies, but the tenants of communism.

[Phier]

No his supporters don't think he's a disgrace, other wise they wouldn't support him. Your "feelings" don't really match up with reality. If you think his base has grown thats absolutely laughable, just look at the 2018 elections if you need proof. Also I'm not sure what a crowd of a hundred or so people at a trump rally has to do with him not being a disgrace. Just because he has support doesn't mean he isn't destroying America and her institutions.


edit: As an aside, calling Sanders a Communist shows a shocking lack of understanding of not only Sander's policies, but the tenants of communism.

Hey that's great but this thread is to talk about the buffoons running as Democrats so I'll focus on Sanders.

He's a commie of the useful idiot variety. He also knows you can't just be a commie in the US and win so they have been slowly back dooring it for years.

He's an utter disaster regardless so the entire concept is moot.

[Akar]

I'm now more certain than ever that you don't know what a communist is.

[Cope]

No his supporters don't think he's a disgrace, other wise they wouldn't support him.

I quite enjoy playing the scoundrel. Not that I'm a Trump supporter of course.

Your "feelings" don't really match up with reality. If you think his base has grown thats absolutely laughable, just look at the 2018 elections if you need proof.

An analysis of the midterms isn't a particularly helpful way of assessing the president's personal popularity for these reasons: (1) the party of the incumbent president typically suffers significant congressional loses in the midterms; (2) Trump's people love Trump not the GOP.

Also I'm not sure what a crowd of a hundred or so people at a trump rally has to do with him not being a disgrace. Just because he has support doesn't mean he isn't destroying America and her institutions.

It doesn't mean that he is either.

[Akar]

He sure isn't one. That's not to say he isn't a Socialist (He describes himself as a Democratic Socialist if I recall) but there's a big difference between socialism and communism. I'm confident there are plenty of things that one can attack Sanders for that are reasonable and grounded in fact and not just scary McCarthyisms. This isn't 1960 anymore, "he's a communist" isn't a reason to not elect someone (which is ignoring the fact that he isn't communist) not that that was ever a reasonable excuse to not elect someone.

With regard to your comment about the midterms though I do concede that it's not a perfect showing of personal popularity and that the incumbent typically suffers heavy losses during the midterms but the expected losses were far lower than reality. 2018 served as a good, though not perfect, example of the direction the country is moving. I can't think of anything Trump has done since then to appease the electorate. I mean the man was impeached, how much do you really expect to see his support increase?

[PointOfViewGun]

The support for Trump and opposition to Sanders, through their nature rather than their existence, is a litmus test for the American public. It's quite enjoyable to see how scared people are of Sanders, not because they oppose his policies though, but because deep down they don't share the same modern principles he promotes.

[Heathen Hammer]

Democrat front-runners are so bad that their supporters have to resort to stock ORANGE MAN BAD talking points to avoid looking inadequate. (Spoiler: it doesn't help).

[PointOfViewGun]

Democrat front-runners are so bad that their supporters have to resort to stock ORANGE MAN BAD talking points to avoid looking inadequate. (Spoiler: it doesn't help).

Sure, trivializing criticism like that works very well with some, but does it really? What do you think you've accomplished by making such a factually inaccurate argument?

[Heathen Hammer]

Sure, trivializing criticism like that works very well with some, but does it really? What do you think you've accomplished by making such a factually inaccurate argument?

Bruh. This thread is about Democratic party and Democratic primaries. So you feel like discussing Trump is the only way to avoid realization that Democratic front-runners are inadequate?