USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[Pontifex Maximus]

Democrats: Nobody ever

The electorate: absolutely nobody

Democrats: you should pay money because poor people are suffering

the electorate: ok *donates to charity*

Democrats: No you need to be taxed at 80% because people who *refuse* nto work should be given a standard income because the evil sun monster is causing global warming

:the electorate: Trump wins in 2020 by a massive land slide.

You guys are so ed.

Same reason Trump told the lqbtq community he would be their protector. Empty, meaningless rhetoric.

Ignoring the fact homosexuality is no longer punishable by death in half a dozen African nations where it was previously punishable by deathbecause ofTrmp's International policies. I can't imagine how embarrassing your assertion is when it is so easily debunked. He has literally led the crusade against decriminalizing homosexualisty across the board, has appointed the first gay people to office, but let's ignore all of that in light of your laughable debate over smearing Trump as homophobic, the only President to enter office being OK with gay marriage when even Obama was in favor of the Defense Against Marriage Act.

Pathetic argument as usual lol. I am not surprised.

[conon394]

Democrats: No you need to be taxed at 80% because people who *refuse* nto work should be given a standard income because the evil sun monster is causing global warming

And which candidate is proposing a basic income? An 80% tax rate I had not noticed one. Do enlighten me.

because the evil sun monster is causing global warming

So you are climate change denier then correct. Well better than (Republican) you have to ban abortion and contraception because some invisible man in the sky says so...

[tgoodenow]

Trump shifted on issues from primary to the general election.

Shifted on how his attitude towards funding. Went from self funded and grass roots to doing what most politicians do.

Shifted on minimum wage. Stated he wasn't open to raising it in the primaries, was later open to raising it.

Shifted on his attitude toward compromising. Was much more open to the idea of compromising and prided himself on his ability to make deals.

Shifted on his immigration approach. In August 2016, he was asked how he would deport all the illegals and he pretty much said that he would do what Obama did and focus on criminals first. Declined to answer about what he would do for others.

I think we can both agree that those position switches are different than say:

"Yes, I thought releasing 50% of the prison population was a good idea, now I oppose it"
"Yes I thought everyone who entered the country illegally should be granted citizenship, now I oppose it"
"Yes I committed to billions of dollars for reparations, now I oppose them"

The policy positions being adopted are so extreme and out of this world, walking them back is going to look like they are incapable of decision making.

[alhoon]

How about actually standing behind things you believe in instead of telling people what you think they want to hear? I can't think of a single policy position Trump switched from primary to general election. Why is it ok to lie to get votes?

If a single one of these democrat candidates actually said "hey, I don't think open borders is a good idea and I'm not racist because I feel that way", they would win this primary hands down. Most democrat voters aren't open borders socialist loonies. Instead, it has become a competition to who can give away the most free stuff in every different manner possible and who can virtue signal the best. It's a circus at this point.

Trump has shifted many of his positions when he moved to the general election.
The first and biggest O_O was of course how he moved from "I will fund everything from my own pockets to not be beholden to special interests!!!!1111" to "I now get money from special interests. I meant I wouldn't do it in the primary, but come on, the general is much more expensive."

If the average wins out then why is Biden copying progressive rhetoric.

To win the primaries.

[alhoon]

Ignoring the fact homosexuality is no longer punishable by death in half a dozen African nations where it was previously punishable by deathbecause ofTrmp's International policies. I can't imagine how embarrassing your assertion is when it is so easily debunked. He has literally led the crusade against decriminalizing homosexualisty across the board, has appointed the first gay people to office, but let's ignore all of that in light of your laughable debate over smearing Trump as homophobic, the only President to enter office being OK with gay marriage...

Ehh... what?
Do you have any actual source on those? NOT empty Trump words of "I am OK with gay marriage", but actual laws he pushed towards that? I do believe Trump is OK with gay marriage but his supporters are not.
I would also like to see some solid sources that Trump is "leading the crusade on decriminalizing homosexuality globally" when he's buddy-buddy with dictators that are openly homophobic and I would like some sources that "he appointed the first gay people to office."
To what office? For example, Eric Fanning was appointed by Obama. Barney Frank was Chairman of the House Financial Statements Committee. So... your statement is easily proven false.
I am sure that if I check the net, I will find many more gay people that have been appointed to important positions before 2017.

So, now that you have been proven (quite easily) wrong about the last part, will you explain what you meant with "the first gay people to office?" Or the rest of your claims about Trump's decriminalization crusade that stopped death penalties to gays to half of Africa?


PS. I am mildly against gay marriage. Keep it as civil unions. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Which means I am against Muslim marriages to more than one woman. More strongly than I am against gay marriage in fact.

[Gaidin]

Ehh... what?
Do you have any actual source on those?

Trump is the source. What you need to realize that Trump is the kind of person that only wanted to win. He is not really a true politician. If he thought he could get the Presidency off the Democratic party he'd be towing Democratic policies right now as a Democratic President.

PS. I am mildly against gay marriage. Keep it as civil unions. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Which means I am against Muslim marriages to more than one woman. More strongly than I am against gay marriage in fact.

So you're one of those. It was always marriage unless some states switched to civil union before gay marriage was ever a thing. The ones wanting civil unions now are...like you. I don't even know why you bring up this Muslim crap in this thread considering we're not in the middle east in this thread. But...you're one of those.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

I think we can both agree that those position switches are different than say:

"Yes, I thought releasing 50% of the prison population was a good idea, now I oppose it"
"Yes I thought everyone who entered the country illegally should be granted citizenship, now I oppose it"
"Yes I committed to billions of dollars for reparations, now I oppose them"

The policy positions being adopted are so extreme and out of this world, walking them back is going to look like they are incapable of decision making.

I mean, going from I'm going to deport all the illegals to avoiding the question is a big shift.

Anyways, you are are being disingenuous with your assertions. Most candidates have only paid lip service to reparations and say things like "I support a study on reparations" . No Democrat is for open borders (some are for decriminalizing crossing the border, but this doesn't mean it is legal or that you immune from deportation). No Democrat is for releasing violent criminals for no reason.

Start picking specific policies that have been concretely been laid out, and we'll walk through what truly is crazy. I would argue that anything that you post can likely be walked back into something more palatable for the general election and it's not going to be a big deal. Democrats will support it no matter what because it's anything but Trump, and "moderates" will find a way to gravitate towards those policies if they are already headed in that direction. No one who understands politics will fault politicians who do things like this, and the people who do find fault are the least likely to remember what they said in the first place (considering that they forget that this happens every election).

[alhoon]

Trump is the source.

That's a bit more dubious than saying "I read it in Harry Potter fanfiction".

[Gaidin]

That's a bit more dubious than saying "I read it in Harry Potter fanfiction".

The fact that you don't understand that Trump would be just as happy as a pig in mud if he could've won as a Democrat, and would've happily done just that if he thought he had better odds doing that instead, means you really don't understand what's going on here. The dude gives no craps what he's doing. He just wants to win.

[tgoodenow]

Delete

[alhoon]

The fact that you don't understand that Trump would be just as happy as a pig in mud if he could've won as a Democrat, and would've happily done just that if he thought he had better odds doing that instead, means you really don't understand what's going on here. The dude gives no craps what he's doing. He just wants to win.

I completely understand that and I agree.
However, a poster mentioned some things that are not properly sourced. I was asking Pontifex for some reliable or at least semi-reliable source.

[Basil II the B.S]

https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/st...06980298186753

Another terrific candidate.

[Vanoi]

Doesn't sound bad.

[Prodromos]

The future is female until a little spider needs killing.

[Mithradates]

"Our future is female" what does that even mean?

[Katsumoto]

Are you folks seriously triggered by "Our future is female"?

[Vanoi]

Femenism scares some people i guess.

[Basil II the B.S]

Femenism scares some people i guess.

Are you familiar with intersectionality?

Because it's Neo-Marxism applied to race/gender/sexuality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

If you want to run with it, go for it. There's hardly anything more un-American than that.

Are you folks seriously triggered by "Our future is female"?

Triggered? God no. I welcome this kind of bs. The best chance Trump has to get reelected is to face a liberal retard like Gillibrand or similar imbecilles.Even reasonable Dems like Nancy have noticed it. Even Bill Maher has noticed it. If intersectionality if the platform of the next Democratic candidate, then it'll be a lot harder to beat Trump.

"Our future is female" what does that even mean?

Nothing. Liberals use slogans because it allows them to avoid thinking. Straight from Orwell.

[Cope]

"Our future is female" what does that even mean?

Nothing. It's an empty platitude like "diversity is our strength" or "make America great again"

[Vanoi]

Are you familiar with intersectionality?

Because it's Neo-Marxism applied to race/gender/sexuality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

If you want to run with it, go for it. There's hardly anything more un-American than that.

First off nothing in that link describes intersectionality as Neo-Marxist. In fact your link goes on to describe it as a branch of femenism that examines how political and social discrimination overlap with gender. Is that so controversial for you?