|
Post by celawson on Mar 23, 2019 18:49:58 GMT -5
As much as Cassandra is praising you for your "thoughtful" responses to my post, I'm not convinced they're all that. Here's what the Border Patrol Chief says about calls to abolish ICE: So I guess THAT's "what the hell ICE has to do with CBP". Quite a lot practically speaking. thehill.com/hilltv/rising/401228-border-patrol-chief-calls-to-abolish-ice-impact-the-morale-of-my-teamRegarding abortion: Since when have supposedly mainstream Democrats touted abortion on demand up to and including during labor and delivery? This is an entirely different scenario than the usual and much more extreme. Your other comments about the minimum wage and universal basic income being "touted" -- I'm not arguing no one over the years has suggested these. I'm saying these are formerly leftist policy ideas that are becoming mainstream issues in today's Democratic party. Bill Clinton didn't "tout" any of these things during his presidency. Obama didn't "tout" these things. He tried to make college more affordable, yes, but FREE college tuition for all? Heck no. Universal basic income? no Abolishing private medical insurance? no, Obamacare did not do that. Yet that's what multiple Dem candidates want to do now - single governmental payer. Whether or not you think this is a good idea, it's far left of what recent Democratic administrations wanted to implement.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 24, 2019 1:05:30 GMT -5
I can't believe I'm doing this, but holy hell, no one else is responding, so I will. Note - I will be in Italy for a while, so I don't plan on ruining my trip with insults from TCG. You're right - there's no contest. And the party that's extreme is the one that: A Republican who proudly votes for and stands by a racist swine who brags about grabbing women by the pussy calling Democrats "extreme" is little bit like being called fat, ugly and crazy by Roseanne Barr. You have to consider the source---and then reject it for the ridiculous bullshit it is.
I'll address the first six items of the Dizzy Dozen:
1. Abolish the Electoral College? Sure, why not? "The electoral college is a disaster for democracy." So sayeth Donald Trump in 2012 when he was against the electoral college right before it made him president four years later despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton. I would enjoy watching all the celawsons of the GOP who want to keep their unpopular candidate insurance plan/scam in place, talking this trashi if its a Democrat who loses the popular vote but wins the most electoral votes. We'll see how much they want to keep the electoral college when President-Elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is raising her right hand to take the Oath of Office.
The Electoral College is a windfall for Republican losers and a rancid remnant of America's Original Sin. So why do we need it? Well, according to Paul LePage, the former governor of Maine, there's a great reason to keep it around.
Keep the electoral college or White people will not have anything to say. I gotta agree, celawson. Tthat sounds like a mainstream conservative policy, all right.
I despise how medical decisions are made not by patients, physicians, pharmacists and health care professionals, but by blank-faced bureaucrats in the cubicles of shiny new buildings owned by insurance companies. We don't have a healthcare system. We have an insurance company scam.
3. The Great New Deal. Not much to say about this after that silly and desperately hyperbolic description by celawson. I get it. Republicans want clean air, water and energy just as much as Democrats do. They just don't want it to cost anything or have to change anything about how we're destroying the only planet we've got. Who cares about crazy-ass weather and drowning polar bears and dead whales with bellies full of plastic. We're gonna get us a Space Force! Yeahhhhhhhhhhh..boyee!
4. Pack the Supreme Court? That's a ridiculous idea and it will never get off the ground, nor should it, so I agree with our resident conservative on that. What I favor is taking the U.S. Senate back next year, kicking Lindsey Graham out as Chairman and replacing him with any of the current Democrats not named Feinstein, Leahy or Durbin, and then steadfastly refusing to approve any of Trump's awful judicial nominees until Merrick Garland is selected to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. That would be fair.
5. Cheers and lights up buildings for legislation allowing abortion on demand up to birth...
You're never gonna let that one go, are you? Even though that is not a national policy being pushed by the Democrats and in your more rational and lucid moment, I'm fairly certain you know that. It is always worth an side-eye whenever a pro-life conservative falls back on " the majority of the country is against late -term abortions..." to support their opposition, but ignore that t he majority of the country is also for a woman's right to choose.
I love it when you're playing fast and loose with the facts, celawson. Actually, I don't love it at all, but it does make it so much easier to pull apart the flimsier parts of your arguments, so thanks for that.
6. Wants to abolish ICE and open our borders...
The second part is a leftover from 2018 attack ads Republicans ran against Democrats and it's not true and never has been, so let's flush that way with Beto O'Rourke's green turd and move on. The first part is not a universally held position by 2020 declared Democratic presidential candidates.
Illegal immigration to the U.S. has NOT risen to crisis level numbers. It has fallen and has been doing so for some time now.
The only "crisis" at the border is Trump and the Republicans using scare tactics of invading hordes of brown people swarming over the Southern border. That's a manufactured crisis because it's easy to scare White people that Brown people are illegally entering this country to take the jobs White people don't want to do. What they want to do is separate children from their parents and then lose them in the system. Tough luck, Miguel. You'll not be seeing your family again, but hey at least you're here! Watch out for the sexual assault!'
Welcome to America. Now drop your drawers, bend over and cough. Careful, though. That may not a thermometer sliding in through the out door. Join ICE for the fun of breaking up immigrant families. Stay for the buggery.
Half down and a half to go. Toodle-loo.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 26, 2019 12:20:07 GMT -5
I had a conversation via twitter with someone yesterday. She, like me, isn't a fan of either party much, but her take was that she considers herself a centrist.
Her views summarized Pro choice, but with restriction on late term Pro 2nd amendment, but common sense restrictions. She has a handgun for protection. (It's pink, btw) Pro gay rights smaller gov't but safety nets for ppl who need it school choice celebrate diversity her words, Wrap our arms around inclusiveness" America Strong, Middle class strong.
She feels as if she doesn't have a home. Doesn't like Trump, but will vote for him over some of the other candidates. (She really hates gillibrand)
We joked about starting a new party. After a few good names, we came up with the Common Party.
How would any of you speak to her politically?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 26, 2019 13:10:58 GMT -5
Fairly comfortably.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Mar 26, 2019 13:15:51 GMT -5
I really think those positions represent the vast, vast majority of Americans.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 26, 2019 14:42:33 GMT -5
She sounds socially liberal, economically conservative. (in the old sense of the word conservative)
That's not allowed. She has to be all one or the other to rate a major party.
The candidates closest to those views in 2016 were Gary Johnson and William Weld, running as Libertarians.
She's one of those people that would get lectured about wasting her vote. Ironically, I also agree with prozyan.
What's wrong with this picture?
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Mar 28, 2019 10:45:53 GMT -5
I thought the Repubs made two very tone-deaf decisions this week, that may very well come back to haunt Trump in the 2020 election:
1. Cutting funding for the Special Olympics. I know it's not a federal program but... really? 2. Going all-in to repeal Obamacare, with no legit alternative and even going after pre-existing conditions coverage.
The first looks horrible, even if there's some long-winded explanation for why it's not all that bad (it is, imo), but the second will directly hurt many in his base.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 28, 2019 12:09:09 GMT -5
/photo/1
Poll
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 12:22:19 GMT -5
None of this surprises me -- I suspected Biden would be front runner if he threw his hat in the ring -- but I suspect that Buttigieg is going to gain steam (and he should -- he's a great candidate and very smart). It is still early days (which people seem to forget). I would be extremely happy to have Biden rather than Bernie, but I'd like him to pick an interesting front runner, preferably someone that will appeal to the left wing like Harris or Stacey Abrams (because yes, I think it would be good to get a smart woman of color on the ticket, and both of them are worthy, IMO).
Biden with a good front runner is probably the best shot of defeating Trump. He also has White House experience, which I think is going to be pretty damn useful after the shambles Trump is going to leave things.
My biggest concern is defeating Trump (and hopefully with a candidate who has ethics, brains, and preferably experience); my second is "please, please, please -- not Bernie."
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 28, 2019 12:32:51 GMT -5
Although I've generally liked O'Rourke, his table-standing, style-over-substance shtick is starting to wear thin on me, especially over the past two weeks.
I've been mostly supportive of Andrew Yang thus far but the more I hear/see of Buttigieg, the more I like. I'm looking forward to the debates because, on the issues, I think Buttigieg and Yang will outshine everyone else in terms of substance, vision, and articulation.
Unfortunately, these things are largely a popularity contest, so unless they can win over large amounts of people between now and then, as well as from the debates, I fear that "substantive stands on the issues with real solutions" will lose out to progressive and identitarian talking points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 13:34:55 GMT -5
Ditto here, and the buzz on him is growing by the day. I'm not so sure he's going to lose out to anyone. The progressives who are solely about the "I want someone who isn't a straight white guy" may be placated by the fact that he's openly gay, and I think his progressive chops are sufficient. There's also the fact that he's openly a person of faith which could go over well with moderates and independents who fear a godless extremist. And his faith is not piously offputting to this atheist (as is that of too many on the right). I've seen anti-Trump conservatives online saying surprisingly nice things about him.
He could be 2020's Obama. But it's early days. I'm still pretty open minded about everyone but Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie. Please, please, please don't make me vote for one of them (which I will have to do if they are the Dem candidate and thus the only shot of beating Trump).
I agree with you, unfortunately on O'Rourke. I really liked him a lot early on, and I don't hate him now, but I agree he's falling into schtick, and I freaking hate that. I want to see issues and brains. But I do think we need some charm/charisma, too, not so much for people like me but to win over the people who aren't listening to the brains overmuch. That's O'Rourke's chief appeal, IMO. But I'm watching the rest of the field.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 28, 2019 13:38:05 GMT -5
Gee, good ol' asset forfeiture Joe is the darling of the dems these days. How quickly they forget.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 28, 2019 14:00:15 GMT -5
I'm just glad that someone with a little youth is finally out in front.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 14:15:50 GMT -5
Personally, I couldn't give less of a damn about the youth thing. I want experience, and damn, we're going to need it.
Also, I'm not all that inclined to hold stuff politicians did in 19fucking83 against them, unless they still hold views I hate, unless we're talking egregious shit like membership in the KKK, sexual assault, theft, grift, etc., that shows horrendous character flaws, as opposed to long-ago policy views they advocated that I don't like.
Obama and Clinton initially opposed same-sex marriage. I vehemently disagree with that. But they evolved. The fact that they evolved is the important thing for me. Of course, it is quite another thing when a politician continues to advocate a policy I hate. Even there, though, I have to look at it in the context of their positions as a whole, because almost certainly EVERY politician has advocated some policy I dislike.
Sure, ideally a candidate not only would hold all views identical to mine, but would always have done so. But, um, yeah, that's no one. Not even myself. So for me it's a question of (a) what it is they advocated/did that I don't like, (b) when that was and whether they still advocate it, (c) how it fits into their views/actions/character as a whole, (d) how the candidate compares as a whole to my other alternatives. Doesn't it have to be, if you're going to vote for anyone at all?
To be sure, though, I think asset forfeiture is awful, so I'm with you 100% on that. I'd like to hear from Joe whether he still thinks it's a good idea. I'd also like to understand what his intentions were then. Very often the egregious awfulness of a policy doesn't become fully apparent until it is put into place and we see how it plays out. I have NO fucking patience with someone who advocates it today.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 28, 2019 15:13:00 GMT -5
Ditto here, and the buzz on him is growing by the day. I'm not so sure he's going to lose out to anyone. The progressives who are solely about the "I want someone who isn't a straight white guy" may be placated by the fact that he's openly gay, and I think his progressive chops are sufficient. There's also the fact that he's openly a person of faith which could go over well with moderates and independents who fear a godless extremist. And his faith is not piously offputting to this atheist (as is that of too many on the right). I've seen anti-Trump conservatives online saying surprisingly nice things about him. He could be 2020's Obama. But it's early days. I'm still pretty open minded about everyone but Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie. Please, please, please don't make me vote for one of them (which I will have to do if they are the Dem candidate and thus the only shot of beating Trump). He's also an Afghanistan war veteran, which should appeal to right-leaning moderates and more centrist conservatives. He also speaks multiple languages, which should impress us snobby, intellectual elitists and those concerned with his ability to establish warm relations with international leaders. As much as I like Yang, I don't feel he's as much of a "total package" as Buttigieg. To me, he's everything O'Rourke tries to be, but he's actually successful at it.
|
|