Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[waiguoren]

The left has descended into some sick territory in the last two years.

It's no coincidence that they keep bringing up sick and deviant sexual behaviors. It reveals where their mind is at most of the day.

Sigmund Freud would have a field day with some of the posts in this very thread.

I'm not into the Left/Right thing. I think it's needlessly divisive given that most people don't have actual ideological beliefs underpinning their affiliation. In other words, usage of these terms mostly just feeds tribalist division.

However, I agree with you that @Jack V Savage 's posting style has become increasingly vituperative in recent years. His standards for civility have dropped off a cliff, as have those of many other instinctively anti-Trump people.

 

[Trotsky]

Senator =/= President

He can't be trusted with the highest Office of the land, if he can't even be trusted to drive on our roads safely and responsibly.

Nice failed attempt at deflection and minimization though!

But a person who just had a charity shut down for stealing from donors and the government by using charitable donations for private gain, who has avoided taxes, who has ripped off investors and students (plunging the latter group into unbelievable debt for a phony degree).....you think he can be trusted with the highest office of the land?

You see how that's absurdly hypocritical, right?

 

[Jack V Savage]

"Vetting" of his high school accomplishments and a couple personal statements? That's so weak as to be totally insignificant, in my opinion.

Test scores, grades, etc. If you don't value intelligence or diligence, that's fine. I do.

Source?

El Paso Times had him on a list of prominent young businesspeople, he was on the CoC board, etc. You can Google this stuff just like I can. I'm not a particularly big fan of his, and I already said I'm not voting for him so I'm not going to keep discussing his merits.

To repeat: I have played in bands and written songs. In no way is this a qualification for the presidency. I think if you're going to say you believe the opposite, you should at least sketch an argument for us.

Good for you. The argument to me is that skill and artistic sense and intelligence are generally positives.

She had a 12-month deployment to a war zone in the Middle East. You're well-aware it's not just "Army reserves". That service is less of a qualifier for the presidency than playing in a band and writing songs?

A band with some success on the local scene. Yeah.

No, I think it's highly unlikely that

"Someone could rape Farmer's mother right in front of him, and if he were a Republican, Farmer would help cover it up."

Are you familiar with the guy's posts? What I said is pretty obviously true, IMO. He seems to revel in Trump's corruption, authoritarianism and immorality. Hey, liberals dislike corruption and immorality so they must be good. I don't think Farmer has any sense of right and wrong that goes beyond that.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I'm not into the Left/Right thing. I think it's needlessly divisive given that most people don't have actual ideological beliefs underpinning their affiliation. In other words, usage of these terms mostly just feeds tribalist division.

However, I agree with you that @Jack V Savage 's posting style has become increasingly vituperative in recent years. His standards for civility have dropped off a cliff, as have those of many other instinctively anti-Trump people.

The fact that Jack thinks it's appropriate to inject the rape of family members into a political discussion shows he's no longer approaching politics of public discourse in a healthy way.

For the last two years, the world hasn't matched his worldview. That can be very distressing, bordering on a mental health issue for people unable to handle such differences.

 

[Jack V Savage]

But a person who just had a charity shut down for stealing from donors and the government by using charitable donations for private gain, who has avoided taxes, who has ripped off investors and students (plunging the latter group into unbelievable debt for a phony degree).....you think he can be trusted with the highest office of the land?

You see how that's absurdly hypocritical, right?

It's beyond hypocritical. It's not a case of like bias causing an oversight. It's a matter of someone truly not having any standards at all beyond tribalism and pretending to.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The fact that Jack thinks it's appropriate to inject the rape of family members into a political discussion shows he's no longer approaching politics of public discourse in a healthy way.

For the last two years, the world hasn't matched his worldview. That can be very distressing, bordering on a mental health issue for people unable to handle such differences.

The world has absolutely matched my world view. I think that you have shown that you're willing to defend anything from Trump. Whatever horrible action one can imagine, you'd defend it. We know this because you've already defended so much from him. If you actually have a line, you tell me what it is.

 

[kpt018]

The fact that Jack thinks it's appropriate to inject the rape of family members into a political discussion shows he's no longer approaching politics of public discourse in a healthy way.

Don't be so dramatic. He's simply illustrating that you defend the right regardless of how bad the moral shortcomings are.

For the last two years, the world hasn't matched his worldview. That can be very distressing, bordering on a mental health issue for people unable to handle such differences.

What do you mean?

But lets get back to the real point here. You have zero leash, ethically, for really anyone on the left but continue to support the most unethical president of our lifetimes. How do you square this intellectually and ethically? It's not even a secret how shitty a person Trump is. I would think for religious folks like yourself banging porn stars while your wife recovered from delivery would be a deal breaker. Unethical and racist housing practices, ripping off students with Trump U, walking into the locker room on Miss America contestants unannounced, Mexicans are rapists and murders, "good people from both sides", mocking handicapped folks, on and on and on, and none of this bothers you? The fucking guy can't be bothered to pay his debts! But any misstep from anyone on the left is disqualifying? You have to see this is fairly insane.

Beto getting a DUI is hardly 1% as bad as the stuff Trump has done in his life.

 

[Trotsky]

I'm not into the Left/Right thing. I think it's needlessly divisive given that most people don't have actual ideological beliefs underpinning their affiliation. In other words, usage of these terms mostly just feeds tribalist division.

However, I agree with you that @Jack V Savage 's posting style has become increasingly vituperative in recent years. His standards for civility have dropped off a cliff, as have those of many other instinctively anti-Trump people.

I think you probably realize how remarkably ironic and hypocritical the first paragraph is given your history of continually, and by my estimations disingenuously, proffering attempted legal defenses of Trump in re the Mueller investigation.

As far as JVS's standards of conduct go, I haven't noticed but also would think it would be entirely understandable given the disparities in honesty and consistency between the right of 2019 and the right of years past. The Trump-supporting right makes the Obama-hating right look principled by comparison.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think you probably realize how remarkably ironic and hypocritical the first paragraph is given your history of continually, and by my estimations disingenuously, proffering attempted legal defenses of Trump in re the Mueller investigation.

As far as JVS's standards of conduct go, I haven't noticed but also would think it would be entirely understandable given the disparities in honesty and consistency between the right of 2019 and the right of years past. The Trump-supporting right makes the Obama-hating right look principled by comparison.

I'm pretty sure that's not true at all. I haven't been posting as much, and I usually try to keep it pleasant (I've noticed the trend, but I just don't really care, don't engage that kind of thing as much). Wai has a habit of pressing me on issues I don't care about (Beto's qualifications being one, and then some recent celebrity gossip story) so I might be shorter than usual with him.

 

[whougonnacall]

Don't be so dramatic. He's simply illustrating that you defend the right regardless of how bad the moral shortcomings are.


What do you mean?

But lets get back to the real point here. You have zero leash, ethically, for really anyone on the left but continue to support the most unethical president of our lifetimes. How do you square this intellectually and ethically? It's not even a secret how shitty a person Trump is. I would think for religious folks like yourself banging porn stars while your wife recovered from delivery would be a deal breaker. Unethical and racist housing practices, ripping off students with Trump U, walking into the locker room on Miss America contestants unannounced, Mexicans are rapists and murders, "good people from both sides", mocking handicapped folks, on and on and on, and none of this bothers you? The fucking guy can't be bothered to pay his debts! But any misstep from anyone on the left is disqualifying? You have to see this is fairly insane.

Beto getting a DUI is hardly 1% as bad as the stuff Trump has done in his life.

Thats incorrect





It was miss teen usa he walked in the changing rooms not miss americs making him a creep not just a creep

 

[kpt018]

Thats incorrect





It was miss teen usa he walked in the changing rooms not miss americs making him a creep not just a creep

My bad lol. Man that's even worse.

 

[killakoy]

Her lack of character, intelligence, education, and preparation all make me think that she'd be very bad at the job. I don't think the default position is that someone would make a good president.

So I get why JVS doesn't like Gabbard as a candidate, but I have to ask why he thinks her character is a liability.

This gets attacked a lot in the MSM, but with shady reasoning behind it. Her character is literally her strongest attribute as a candidate.

 

[Trotsky]

So I get why JVS doesn't like Gabbard as a candidate, but I have to ask why he thinks her character is a liability.

This gets attacked a lot in the MSM, but with shady reasoning behind it. Her character is literally her strongest attribute as a candidate.

Her support of Hindu nationalists is a pretty big red flag for me. And I also question the fundamental character of someone that can ever be passionately anti-gay rights, but that's another discussion.

Otherwise, I tend to agree that aspersions on her character are not all that strong, certainly relative to other prominent Democrats, and certainly certainly relative to Republicans.

And relative to Trump?

 

[PEB]

Someone get this man some air time.

 

[killakoy]

When you look at context everything makes sense and makes it consistent with her beliefs (even if I don't share those views).

Her initial position on LGBT very much coincides with her family and how she grew up. There's no doubt in my mind that she had a lot of soul searching to overcome due to years of indoctrination. Actually, while I see that as a huge strength, I'm sure that her childhood will be what costs her future political offices. Since then, she has a perfect congressional record in regards to LGBT rights.

As for her relationship with Modi - it's not something that's a good look. But again, it's completely in-line with her beliefs. Her stance has always been against regime change wars and ending the cyclical nature of the military industrial complex. Most people projected this as her being an anti-war/anti-interventionist type of politician, but that's not true. She's very much pro-war when it comes to suppressing activity that would lead to terrorist activity. It's apparent that she's not opposed to making alliances with harsh dictatorships if that's what brings about regional stability.

 

[Lead]

The DNC just said how it will pick candidates to be in presidential debates
Vox

Democrats are facing a potential debate caucus with 10 major candidates already announced for president and 20 or so other potential hopefuls waiting in the wings. But the DNC has a plan.

This afternoon, the DNC announced its criteria for how 2020 candidates will qualify for its first debates this summer. In addition to a candidate’s polling, the DNC will prioritize accepting candidates who have shown they can raise money from grassroots donors.

Cliffs:
-12 DNC primary debates are scheduled
-First debate will be in June
-The DNC will allow up to 20 candidates in the first debate
-The criteria has been expanded beyond polling at least 1% to also a grassroots donation quota that also could get you on the debate stage

 

[Lead]

As Democrats Emphasize Diversity, South Carolina Is A Key Early Campaign Stop
NPR

The Democratic Party is increasingly focused on and organized around diversity. It also has the most diverse field of candidates in the history of presidential politics. And voters in South Carolina, the first primary state with a predominantly African-American Democratic electorate, have been inundated with 2020 hopefuls in these early weeks of the campaign.

Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders spent the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday with the South Carolina NAACP. Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand just made swings through the state over the last week. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren will be there in a few days.

Cliffs-
-A few primary contenders have visited South Carolina recently (Booker, Harris, Sanders)
-Harris has made two trips since announcing before even visiting New Hampshire
-South Carolina is the fourth state that will get to vote in the Democrat primary process and one of the more diverse of the earlier states

 

[Jack V Savage]

Her support of Hindu nationalists is a pretty big red flag for me. And I also question the fundamental character of someone that can ever be passionately anti-gay rights, but that's another discussion.

Otherwise, I tend to agree that aspersions on her character are not all that strong, certainly relative to other prominent Democrats, and certainly certainly relative to Republicans.

And relative to Trump?

Sure, but shouldn't Democrats have a higher standard for character than Trump? I don't see Gabbard doing well at all, but say she wins the nomination, how should a person of good conscience handle it in the general? I think you gotta be clear that she's not as bad as Trump, but I don't think people should lower themselves to actually defending her. We're seeing now how corrosive that kind of thing can be. I really think the left needs to be vigilant against the idea that Trump means you don't need to care about the character of politicians you might generally agree with. And the same applies to other standards. "Oh, Trump is president and he doesn't know what he's doing so it's OK." No. It's very far from OK, and that's part of the reason.

 

[Trotsky]

Sure, but shouldn't Democrats have a higher standard for character than Trump? I don't see Gabbard doing well at all, but say she wins the nomination, how should a person of good conscience handle it in the general? I think you gotta be clear that she's not as bad as Trump, but I don't think people should lower themselves to actually defending her. We're seeing now how corrosive that kind of thing can be. I really think the left needs to be vigilant against the idea that Trump means you don't need to care about the character of politicians you might generally agree with. And the same applies to other standards. "Oh, Trump is president and he doesn't know what he's doing so it's OK." No. It's very far from OK, and that's part of the reason.

Frankly, I think even having this conversation re Gabbard is asinine. Gabbard's character is not a major issue any more than Clinton's character was a major issue: in fact, I take much more issue with Clinton's character than Gabbard's. But there are so few Democrats for which this is a remotely comparable trait to any Republican nominee (the "good" ones like Romney very much included). I mean....I can't even think of one for which it would be a valid concern....Harry Reid? Joe Lieberman? I literally hate Lieberman, but even he would be a choir boy on a GOP debate stage.

 

[abiG]

Sure, but shouldn't Democrats have a higher standard for character than Trump? I don't see Gabbard doing well at all, but say she wins the nomination, how should a person of good conscience handle it in the general? I think you gotta be clear that she's not as bad as Trump, but I don't think people should lower themselves to actually defending her. We're seeing now how corrosive that kind of thing can be. I really think the left needs to be vigilant against the idea that Trump means you don't need to care about the character of politicians you might generally agree with. And the same applies to other standards. "Oh, Trump is president and he doesn't know what he's doing so it's OK." No. It's very far from OK, and that's part of the reason.

Frankly, I think even having this conversation re Gabbard is asinine. Gabbard's character is not a major issue any more than Clinton's character was a major issue: in fact, I take much more issue with Clinton's character than Gabbard's. But there are so few Democrats for which this is a remotely comparable trait to any Republican nominee (the "good" ones like Romney very much included). I mean....I can't even think of one for which it would be a valid concern....Harry Reid? Joe Lieberman? I literally hate Lieberman, but even he would be a choir boy on a GOP debate stage.

You two really need pick up one of these: