USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[Cope]

1. so you have no rebuttal to this other than emotional appeal.

I explained why your reference to the discretionary budget was meaningless and posted the actual figure (with a source) that the federal govt. will be spending on defence this year. Your reference to a nonexistent "emotional appeal" is a transparent attempt to avoid confronting the substance of my critique.

Even though every year the discretionary budget increases as the military requires more and more money to maintain and even expand its role, we aren't at war with anyone.

It doesn't. The military budget contracted significantly during Pres. Obama's 2nd term, before rising again under Trump.

2. you are basically just towing the republican party line here. Even if everything you said was true about Suliemani, it would still make his assassination illegal. But imperialists will start a war then justify it later. Good thing the outcry about it was so severe that Trump backed off. Which makes him better in that regard than most presidents would have been. I could have easily seen President Clinton acting as if firing 80 rockets into abandoned sites as an act of war.

That Soleimani was a malign influence on the region is not doubted by anyone arguing in good faith; acknowledging that fact has nothing to do with "towing the Republican line". The difficulty with the legal position is that Soleimani was a state actor behaving like a non-state actor (ie. a terrorist). Operating in this legal grey area enabled him to perpetrate de facto acts of criminality whilst still remaining under the protection if international law (not that Tehran observes international law anyway).The attacks he is accused of organizing against the US embassy in Iraq were the final straw, and Trump's response was justified, even if the WH's legal arguments weren't fully fleshed out.

Even so, this has nothing to do with the US's so-called war economy. If the president had wanted to use Soleimani's death as a trigger to start a war with Iran he would have. Though Trump is well known for being reluctant to involve the US militarily; he's much more interested in finding economic solutions (which contradicts your false narrative that the military is the economy).

[Heathen Hammer]

No refunds: Bernie Sanders endorses Joe Biden for president.

I wonder if Sanders will pull the same thing in 2024 as well, given how his cultists continue to support him despite him throwing them under the neoliberal bus over and over again.

[alhoon]

No refunds: Bernie Sanders endorses Joe Biden for president.

I wonder if Sanders will pull the same thing in 2024 as well, given how his cultists continue to support him despite him throwing them under the neoliberal bus over and over again.

To be fair, Sanders was clear from the get-go that he will support the nominee whomever he or she would be to defeat Trump. His supporters knew it would happen or they're not paying attention.


And now, a reminder of words said by the Democrat candidate:
"For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real,"
- Biden

Let's see how he treats the sexual harassment accusations.

[skh1]

Reuters report that knowledgeable sources state that former President Barack Obama will release a video later today (Tuesday, April 14th) endorsing his former Vice-President Joe Biden for the presidency of the United States in 2020.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...medium=partner

This is not entirely surprising as his only other alternatives would have been to endorse nobody or to endorse President Donald Trump.

The endorsement —

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

Congratulations to Joe Biden, personally I don't think he'll be capable of debating Donald Trump due to his... way of speech, but I'm sure that the first debate will be fun to watch, won't need to watch more than one, because I'm pretty sure Trump will keep parroting the same stuff regardless if a debate has a specific theme and Biden will struggle to refute the same points over again.

But that Obama endorsement, now that'll secure the Presidency.

[Aexodus]

It’s quite vindicating to see the alliance of socialists and liberals show cracks, and even start to fall apart. Ideological socialists and American liberals just aren’t as natural allies in the new paradigm as they once were. Whether Bernie supporters vote for Biden, Trump, or not at all will have a significant impact on the result this year.

[skh1]

Is it possible that in our fixation upon Democrat vs. Republican, the dross and drear criterion of viability, we have been blind to greater possibilities?
https://www.politics1.com/p2020.htm

For example:


https://verminsupreme2020.com/

Eccentric in form to be sure but not entirely lacking in substance, no?

(Should the Mods deem this post to be impertinent to the topic under discussion and thus delete it, one would understand.)

[alhoon]

Here is where Sanders' idiocy and promotion of workplace democracy could lead in the snowflake industry:
https://www.businessinsider.com/mark...76E54JSllPfHWg

Scroll down:
"Zuckerberg's comments during the company call don't seem to have placated Facebook's employees, as many staged a virtual walkout Monday. During his call Friday, Zuckerberg said he had agonized over the decision."

A billionaire has to apologize to the snowflakes in his job about not removing a post by the PotUS. The boss of a multinational had to himself address whether they would remove one post and was "agonizing" over the decision. And the snowflakes staged a virtual walkout... during 25% unemployment.
He should have joined Zoom to say: "Hi! 500 of those that walked out should look for a different job. If there are more complains, I will add another 500 tomorrow."
There are tens of thousands of people that would like those jobs.

I am 100% sure that if Sanders wing wasn't popular since 2016, such crap would not fly. Absurdities like this one in facebook would not happen if Sanders was still considered "that eccentric old socialist" instead of a serious candidate.
His ideas are already eroding the pillars of some of the biggest earners of USA that also add a lot of USA's influence as facebook and google is everywhere. And yet, thanks to Sanders' stupid ideas they have to bend backwards for the snowflake employees.

[Love Mountain]

You're building an argument in favor of Sanders' workplace democracy, rather than one against him. Ultimately, if Zuckerberg weighed the pros/cons and went with his decision. That's not on "snowflake" workers, that's on him.

[Gaidin]

Here is where Sanders' idiocy and promotion of workplace democracy could lead in the snowflake industry:
https://www.businessinsider.com/mark...76E54JSllPfHWg

Scroll down:
"Zuckerberg's comments during the company call don't seem to have placated Facebook's employees, as many staged a virtual walkout Monday. During his call Friday, Zuckerberg said he had agonized over the decision."

A billionaire has to apologize to the snowflakes in his job about not removing a post by the PotUS. The boss of a multinational had to himself address whether they would remove one post and was "agonizing" over the decision. And the snowflakes staged a virtual walkout... during 25% unemployment.
He should have joined Zoom to say: "Hi! 500 of those that walked out should look for a different job. If there are more complains, I will add another 500 tomorrow."
There are tens of thousands of people that would like those jobs.

I am 100% sure that if Sanders wing wasn't popular since 2016, such crap would not fly. Absurdities like this one in facebook would not happen if Sanders was still considered "that eccentric old socialist" instead of a serious candidate.
His ideas are already eroding the pillars of some of the biggest earners of USA that also add a lot of USA's influence as facebook and google is everywhere. And yet, thanks to Sanders' stupid ideas they have to bend backwards for the snowflake employees.

I'm pretty sure Facebook is mostly at-will employment. If Zucky is willing to replace all 500 programmers he can do so.

[PointOfViewGun]

Here is where Sanders' idiocy and promotion of workplace democracy could lead in the snowflake industry:
https://www.businessinsider.com/mark...76E54JSllPfHWg

Scroll down:
"Zuckerberg's comments during the company call don't seem to have placated Facebook's employees, as many staged a virtual walkout Monday. During his call Friday, Zuckerberg said he had agonized over the decision."

A billionaire has to apologize to the snowflakes in his job about not removing a post by the PotUS. The boss of a multinational had to himself address whether they would remove one post and was "agonizing" over the decision. And the snowflakes staged a virtual walkout... during 25% unemployment.
He should have joined Zoom to say: "Hi! 500 of those that walked out should look for a different job. If there are more complains, I will add another 500 tomorrow."
There are tens of thousands of people that would like those jobs.

I am 100% sure that if Sanders wing wasn't popular since 2016, such crap would not fly. Absurdities like this one in facebook would not happen if Sanders was still considered "that eccentric old socialist" instead of a serious candidate.
His ideas are already eroding the pillars of some of the biggest earners of USA that also add a lot of USA's influence as facebook and google is everywhere. And yet, thanks to Sanders' stupid ideas they have to bend backwards for the snowflake employees.

What statement from Sanders indicate that he supported workplace democracy in the way that workers could strike against the product of a company?

[alhoon]

What statement from Sanders indicate that he supported workplace democracy in the way that workers could strike against the product of a company?

The dozens of statements where he incites workers to "raise up" against the evil bosses and billionaires. The crap we've been hearing from communists since the Great War.

Look, I am not saying some things don't need to change and that there should be more "down flow" of money. Zuckerberg and whomever has google are making billions while the world would be nicer and they would be as happy if they were making many-millions and their employees were making more $$$.

But the big boss of a company as big as Facebook, having to apologize to employees and agonize over how they will take his words? About why Facebook left a message by the President of the USA? The message itself could be bad and horrid but it is by far NOT the only thing that is "below bar" in FB. And he had to explain to his employees that it was an important piece of info. The boss had to explain to his employees about business decisions!
That's absurd.
And it's not the only thing! Google controversy a few years ago also ties to workers feeling too entitled and google uses a kind of work-place democracy. And when your employees have actual power, then you need to be a politician as well as a businessman and these two don't go well together.

I am not talking about the message itself (which was IMO bad but it's not the topic). I am also not complaining on how Zuckerberg runs his company. It's his company, if he wants to whore-out to his employees so be it.

I am talking about how Sanders' movement (and later Warren too) with their crap about the eeeevil 0.01% create and propagate a toxic climate that will hurt businesses or will make investment harder.
I don't think the guys behind Facebook in Egypt had to sweat over their employees' opinion when the Egyptian army moved against the protesters and the Muslim Brotherhood, using Facebook to go after protesters in the Arab Spring.

Since it needs to be repeated: Zuck can do what he wants in his company. But Sanders and Warren create a climate where the employees demand these things. A few years ago, Z was put to the wall over how FB uses personal data. Much more important business decision IMO than whether it would delete the inciting post of a powerful politician, as it will be affecting billions of people for long, not just Americans for a few weeks.
There was some discontent among his employees IIRC but they were not the ones demanding answers.

Warren and Sanders have a thing against the bosses and the billionaires and they are open about it. It is becoming more and more toxic as their followers multiply and such ideas become more mainstream.
And I believe these ideas are 1. rubbish and 2. very counter-productive.

[PointOfViewGun]

The dozens of statements where he incites workers to "raise up" against the evil bosses and billionaires. The crap we've been hearing from communists since the Great War.

Look, I am not saying some things don't need to change and that there should be more "down flow" of money. Zuckerberg and whomever has google are making billions while the world would be nicer and they would be as happy if they were making many-millions and their employees were making more $$$.

But the big boss of a company as big as Facebook, having to apologize to employees and agonize over how they will take his words? About why Facebook left a message by the President of the USA? The message itself could be bad and horrid but it is by far NOT the only thing that is "below bar" in FB. And he had to explain to his employees that it was an important piece of info. The boss had to explain to his employees about business decisions!
That's absurd.
And it's not the only thing! Google controversy a few years ago also ties to workers feeling too entitled and google uses a kind of work-place democracy. And when your employees have actual power, then you need to be a politician as well as a businessman and these two don't go well together.

I am not talking about the message itself (which was IMO bad but it's not the topic). I am also not complaining on how Zuckerberg runs his company. It's his company, if he wants to whore-out to his employees so be it.

I am talking about how Sanders' movement (and later Warren too) with their crap about the eeeevil 0.01% create and propagate a toxic climate that will hurt businesses or will make investment harder.
I don't think the guys behind Facebook in Egypt had to sweat over their employees' opinion when the Egyptian army moved against the protesters and the Muslim Brotherhood, using Facebook to go after protesters in the Arab Spring.

Since it needs to be repeated: Zuck can do what he wants in his company. But Sanders and Warren create a climate where the employees demand these things. A few years ago, Z was put to the wall over how FB uses personal data. Much more important business decision IMO than whether it would delete the inciting post of a powerful politician, as it will be affecting billions of people for long, not just Americans for a few weeks.
There was some discontent among his employees IIRC but they were not the ones demanding answers.

Warren and Sanders have a thing against the bosses and the billionaires and they are open about it. It is becoming more and more toxic as their followers multiply and such ideas become more mainstream.
And I believe these ideas are 1. rubbish and 2. very counter-productive.

I see a lot of clueless whining there but little discussion of substance. Sanders' campaign largely revolves around worker rights that in turn revolve around better pay and better work conditions. What we have here is workers striking against particular use of the company's product. Where did Sanders argue in support of that? Where did Sanders or Warren demanded these "things"?

[alhoon]

They rallied against the billionaires. Both Warren and Sanders are "boss = bad!" and "evil billionaires" kind of leftwing, spewing the same rhetoric and arguments we hear from small time leftwing party youths in university or shouted during anti-austerity events etc.
Worker rights should not include protections against walkouts over how the boss choses to use the product. An approach of "If you want to put your morals ahead of your career, all the power to you, you're not a serf... but you may lose your job, snowflake. So don't do it willy nilly."

[PointOfViewGun]

They rallied against the billionaires. Both Warren and Sanders are "boss = bad!" and "evil billionaires" kind of leftwing, spewing the same rhetoric and arguments we hear from small time leftwing party youths in university or shouted during anti-austerity events etc.
Worker rights should not include protections against walkouts over how the boss choses to use the product. An approach of "If you want to put your morals ahead of your career, all the power to you, you're not a serf... but you may lose your job, snowflake. So don't do it willy nilly."

None of that supports the claim that concepts supported by Sanders and Warren are what those employees did. What I asked for was very simple. You seem to be doing your best to dance around them. You made it clear by now that you have no substance to back up your connection to Sanders or Warren. Thank you for showing that. Your approach is truly a snowflake approach.

[alhoon]

Or so you think. You're welcome to your wrong opinion.

[Pontifex Maximus]

None of that supports the claim that concepts supported by Sanders and Warren

Oof, those concepts aren't even up for debate now and it doesn't matter. Those policies were by themselves embarrassingly inadequate. Your party went with creepy Joe. BUt maybe if you eat the rich enough you ca achieve socialist utopia, or something. lol. good luck

[PointOfViewGun]

Or so you think. You're welcome to your wrong opinion.

I love how you keep using that line when you utterly fail to back up your claims. It's not my opinion that you're unable to refer me to an actual statement by Sanders and Warren.

Oof, those concepts aren't even up for debate now and it doesn't matter. Those policies were by themselves embarrassingly inadequate. Your party went with creepy Joe. BUt maybe if you eat the rich enough you ca achieve socialist utopia, or something. lol. good luck

Yup, they really aren't up for debate. The concepts Sanders and Warren promote, of giving some power to the employees so that they can get better pay and workplace conditions, is the norm in many civilized countries. Since you find them inadequate, you want to give them more?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Yup, they really aren't up for debate. The concepts Sanders and Warren promote, of giving some power to the employees so that they can get better pay and workplace conditions, is the norm in many civilized countries. Since you find them inadequate, you want to give them more?

Bro, you just gonna sit there and pretend the Trump Bucks Bailout didn't exist? You should be expressing your lefty orgasm from the rooftops that the feds gave the out of work proletariat a $1,200.00 payout. POWER TO THE PEOPLE

[Love Mountain]

Bro, you just gonna sit there and pretend the Trump Bucks Bailout didn't exist? You should be expressing your lefty orgasm from the rooftops that the feds gave the out of work proletariat a $1,200.00 payout. POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Indeed, thank god for 2018 Mid-Terms or we would've had way less stimulus. You're almost stumbling into the right conclusions.