Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread v3

[IGIT]

Kirsten Gillibrand Drops Out of 2020 Democratic Presidential Race
New York Times

heyo again Lead,

sorry i missed your post.

hallelujah. i'm glad she's out, i'm glad she was humiliated.

- IGIT

 

[Leagon]

Yang as a candidate has turned out to be a complete boob who can't do anything but make Asian jokes, bitch about Democrats, and say he's giving everybody money with no realistic way to pay for it. He just sucks so bad.

Sorry, if you're as dramatically unqualified as he is (less than Trump even), you have to bring something to the table. He doesn't bring anything.

He has detailed very clearly how UBI will be paid for, just not in the 30 seconds he's alotted during the debates.

He, along with Pete, is also the only candidate who seems to understand that taking everything seriously is how Donald got elected in the first place. Americans aren't smart. They do not think. You can't win them over by proposing policy and providing complex solutions. Donald will not be beaten by a serious person who calls him a racist. He will be beaten by someone who calls him fat and laughs at his spray tan and genereally treats him as the toothless and senile old ED ad that he is. Yang understands that Donald's entire campaign support stems from those who wish to "trigger the libs" and he simply refuses to be triggered.

Every other candidate, except for maybe Pete and Tulsi (and maaaaybe Bernie, who is just as obstinate as Donald), will spend the whole debate getting embarassed and provoked and talking about issues in ways that are far less memorable to voters than Donald's shittalking.

 

[Fawlty]

He has detailed very clearly how UBI will be paid for, just not in the 30 seconds he's alotted during the debates.

He, along with Pete, is also the only candidate who seems to understand that taking everything seriously is how Donald got elected in the first place. Americans aren't smart. They do not think. You can't win them over by proposing policy and providing complex solutions. Donald will not be beaten by a serious person who calls him a racist. He will be beaten by someone who calls him fat and laughs at his spray tan and genereally treats him as the toothless and senile old ED ad that he is. Yang understands that Donald's entire campaign support stems from those who wish to "trigger the libs" and he simply refuses to be triggered.

Every other candidate, except for maybe Pete and Tulsi (and maaaaybe Bernie, who is just as obstinate as Donald), will spend the whole debate getting embarassed and provoked and talking about issues in ways that are far less memorable to voters than Donald's shittalking.

I've looked over Yang's proposals actually, and no he really doesn't pay for it, and his FAQ on his website is kind of ridiculous. It's all wild speculation about resulting reductions in social programs across the board, and the VAT would be a gigantic shakeup in its own right. There's like 0.0001% of the information we would need to make such a radical jump. His track record of big proposals is not exactly spectacular either. He comes off like he might be a bit of a con man.

 

[IGIT]

I've looked over Yang's proposals actually, and no he really doesn't pay for it, and his FAQ on his website is kind of ridiculous. It's all wild speculation about resulting reductions in social programs across the board, and the VAT would be a gigantic shakeup in its own right. There's like 0.0001% of the information we would need to make such a radical jump. His track record of big proposals is not exactly spectacular either. He comes off like he might be a bit of a con man.

hiya Fawlty,

it is ridiculous.

part of Mr. Yang's proposal to pay for it is he'd wipe out government assistance and redirect that money into his "freedom dividend".

- IGIT

 

[Leagon]

I've looked over Yang's proposals actually, and no he really doesn't pay for it, and his FAQ on his website is kind of ridiculous. It's all wild speculation about resulting reductions in social programs across the board, and the VAT would be a gigantic shakeup in its own right. There's like 0.0001% of the information we would need to make such a radical jump. His track record of big proposals is not exactly spectacular either. He comes off like he might be a bit of a con man.

I've heard him explain it several times in longer interviews, including on Rogan and The View. He outlines how much the plan would cost, how much would come from funds currently used for existing welfare programs, how much would come from closing specific loopholes that allow silicon valley megacorps like Amazon and Google to pay minimal taxes, how much would come from the program itself--generated when consumers use that money in their communities--etc.

But the bigger issue for me is that I need Donald to lose and I don't think the other candidates really understand why Donald won in the first place or how to ensure it doesn't happen again. Warren is busy making policy plans, as if Hillary didn't have policy plans.

 

[IGIT]

But the bigger issue for me is that I need Donald to lose and I don't think the other candidates really understand why Donald won in the first place or how to ensure it doesn't happen again. Warren is busy making policy plans, as if Hillary didn't have policy plans.

hi Leagon,

i'm thinking that the American public might give Mrs. Warren a fair hearing. she's not quite as encumbered with the same baggage that Mrs. Clinton toted into the 2016 race.

if Mrs. Warren is the one that emerges out of the primary triumphant, i'd guess that Sanders supporters are less likely to view her as the anti-Christ, you know?

- IGIT

 

[Anung Un Rama]

lol @ anybody supporting Buttigieg

I'd gladly vote or Bernie, Tulsi, or Warren.
I will not vote for Biden.

 

[Fawlty]

I've heard him explain it several times in longer interviews, including on Rogan and The View. He outlines how much the plan would cost, how much would come from funds currently used for existing welfare programs, how much would come from closing specific loopholes that allow silicon valley megacorps like Amazon and Google to pay minimal taxes, how much would come from the program itself--generated when consumers use that money in their communities--etc.

But the bigger issue for me is that I need Donald to lose and I don't think the other candidates really understand why Donald won in the first place or how to ensure it doesn't happen again. Warren is busy making policy plans, as if Hillary didn't have policy plans.

I'm familiar with his explanations but it still doesn't quite add up to me, one example being assuming the safety net will automatically get much smaller and the pressure on social services will be relieved, and I think he's just wrong about that. If he was somebody with a history of coming up with big ideas and meeting big goals (or had any government experience at all), I'd be more inclined to believe some of his claims.

Agreed about the most important thing being taking back the WH and if we're very lucky, the Senate. I'm willing to vote for any Democratic candidate over Trump.

 

[Leagon]

hi Leagon,

i'm thinking that the American public might give Mrs. Warren a fair hearing. she's not quite as encumbered with the same baggage that Mrs. Clinton toted into the 2016 race.

if Mrs. Warren is the one that emerges out of the primary triumphant, i'd guess that Sanders supporters are less likely to view her as the anti-Christ, you know?

- IGIT

I'm worried about the debates. Donald wasn't even a somewhat serious candidate when the 2016 primaries started. He laid waste to the entire field.

I don't see Warren faring well in the debates with him. Her image is very rigid. The first time he pokes a hole in it--which he will, he does it with everyone--I worry she will deflate, politically-speaking.

 

[IGIT]

lol @ anybody supporting Buttigieg

I'd gladly vote or Biden, Tulsi, or Warren.
I will not vote for Biden.

hello Anung Un Rama,

i think you probably meant Bernie, Tulsi or Warren. and you'd withhold your vote from Joe.

- IGIT

 

[Leagon]

I'm familiar with his explanations but it still doesn't quite add up to me, one example being assuming the safety net will automatically get much smaller and the pressure on social services will be relieved, and I think he's just wrong about that. If he was somebody with a history of coming up with big ideas and meeting big goals (or had any government experience at all), I'd be more inclined to believe some of his claims.

Agreed about the most important thing being taking back the WH and if we're very lucky, the Senate. I'm willing to vote for any Democratic candidate over Trump.

Obama didn't have much experience. Clinton didn't have that much experience. Reagan didn't have much experience.

Experience is really overrated, both in terms of doing the job and electability. What experience did JFK have before he promised to put a man on the moon?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

hello Anung Un Rama,

i think you probably meant Bernie, Tulsi or Warren. and you'd withhold your vote from Joe.

- IGIT

IGGY,
This is why I love you. You certainly saved me from being called a liar in the near future when I would refute accusations that I would gladly vote for Biden.
Cheers!
AUR

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Obama didn't have much experience. Clinton didn't have that much experience. Reagan didn't have much experience.

Experience is really overrated, both in terms of doing the job and electability. What experience did JFK have before he promised to put a man on the moon?

Clinton and Reagan were Governors for 8 or 10 years.
You can't really get better experience than that.

edit: you may be right that its overrated, but only in that its not the only important quality to have.

 

[IGIT]

hi and well met, Leagon,

I'm worried about the debates. Donald wasn't even a somewhat serious candidate when the 2016 primaries started. He laid waste to the entire field.

i haven't thought about the 2016 GOP primaries in a while.

*thinks*

Mr. Trump might have laid waste to the entire field because the GOP, as a party, is intellectually bankrupt - and GOP voters finally recognized this to be the case.

think about it. what did they stand for? what have they stood for since Reagan?

evangelical morality? fiscal conservatism? Mr. Trump finally exposed them for what they've been all along; frauds. that doesn't mean that the Democrats need to fight fire with fire. at least i hope it doesn't come down to that.

I don't see Warren faring well in the debates with him. Her image is very rigid. The first time he pokes a hole in it--which he will, he does it with everyone--I worry she will deflate, politically-speaking.

it depends on where the political zeitgeist is at any given time. i can't imagine a more bland candidate than Jimmy Carter. go youtube videos of the man from the 70's, you won't need your ambien tonight...but in '76, Americans were ready for just that kind of politician.

after four years of Mr. Trump, you never know what the cards would hold for Mrs. Warren.

- IGIT

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I'm worried about the debates. Donald wasn't even a somewhat serious candidate when the 2016 primaries started. He laid waste to the entire field.

I don't see Warren faring well in the debates with him. Her image is very rigid. The first time he pokes a hole in it--which he will, he does it with everyone--I worry she will deflate, politically-speaking.

I think Warren is vulnerable to the neanderthal voters who will start parroting "Pocahontas" memes, but that is it.
She would destroy Trump in every metric that counts in any real debate.

 

[Fawlty]

Obama didn't have much experience. Clinton didn't have that much experience. Reagan didn't have much experience.

Experience is really overrated, both in terms of doing the job and electability. What experience did JFK have before he promised to put a man on the moon?

All of those people had experience in government (governor or senator), as well as stellar educations except for Reagan, who was nonetheless far more qualified than Yang. He's really the absolute bottom of the barrel in terms of qualifications- just a law degree, and test prep company, and numerous failed initiatives. I think he compares very unfavorably to all of them.

 

[Leagon]

Clinton and Reagan were Governors for 8 or 10 years.
You can't really get better experience than that.

Lol, you absolutely can. Secretary of State, Vice President, Senate Leader, Governor of a real state (not Arkansas) + Congressional experience are all things that many people have on their resume that are superior to just being a governor. Bill Richardson was a governor, former UN Ambassador, former Secretary of Energy and former congressman and he lost in the primaries to Obama.

 

[ShadowRun]

Holy hell, if that's legit that's a great burn.

It’s legit lol

 

[Leagon]

hi and well met, Leagon,



i haven't thought about the 2016 GOP primaries in a while.

*thinks*

Mr. Trump might have laid waste to the entire field because the GOP, as a party, is intellectually bankrupt - and GOP voters finally recognized this to be the case.

think about it. what did they stand for? what have they stood for since Reagan?

evangelical morality? fiscal conservatism? Mr. Trump finally exposed them for what they've been all along; frauds. that doesn't mean that the Democrats need to fight fire with fire. at least i hope it doesn't come down to that.



its depends on where the political zeitgeist is at any given time. i can't imagine a more bland candidate than Jimmy Carter. go youtube videos of the man from the 70's, you won't need your ambien tonight...but in '76, Americans were ready for just that kind of politician.

after four years of Mr. Trump, you never know what the cards would hold for Mrs. Warren.

- IGIT

Fair point.

We'll find out, I guess. If she gets the nom, she gets my vote anyway.

Though I think you overestimate the Democratic voter base. There's a pronounced schism in the party and I think it's just as unfocused if not intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Lol, you absolutely can. Secretary of State, Vice President, Senate Leader, Governor of a real state (not Arkansas) + Congressional experience are all things that many people have on their resume that are superior to just being a governor. Bill Richardson was a governor, former UN Ambassador, former Secretary of Energy and former congressman and he lost in the primaries to Obama.

Maybe I jumped in the middle of a conversation, I apologize if I misunderstood you.
I'm not saying its the best qualification to win a primary or an election, but it is as good as it gets as a primer for actually being the POTUS.
Those other positions can't prepare you as well for the actual job.